The real cost of an anti-nuclear power stance.

[Huguenot]

I accept that nuclear power has its challenges, but what I'm concerned about is that these are NOT put in context.

If we reject it, the real question is what is the cost environmentally, economically and socially of the alternative.

George Monbiot had a great summary here:

"Germany also decided to shut down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima crisis, due to the imminent risk of tsunamis in Bavaria. Last year, as a result, its burning of "clean coal" ? otherwise known as coal ? rose by 5%. That was despite a massive cut in its exports of electricity to other European countries.

One estimate suggests that by 2020, Germany will have produced an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 as a result of its nuclear closure: equivalent to almost all the savings that will be made in the 27 member states as a result of the EU's energy efficiency directive.

If the UK fails to replace its nuclear plants, which generate 22% of our electricity, the same thing will happen. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy ? which is essential if we're to have any chance of meeting our climate change targets ? is hard enough.

Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power with renewables is harder still. As thermal power plants perversely attract less opposition than wind turbines, the temptation to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels will be overwhelming. Abandoning a proven and reliable low-carbon technology as climate breakdown accelerates is a special form of madness."

Of course he fails to mention the economic impact of reliance on international fossil fuel markets or the social impact of the resource crunch - global conflict.

Even disasters like Fukushima are a drop in the ocean compared with the 600,000 that died in the Iraq conflict (a war for control of oil resources) - yet Fukushima results in frenzied anti nuclear protests, whilst people blithely ignore Iraq as they drive their kids to school.

[Loz]

Given what hit Fukushima - a major-league earthquake, a tsunami and a number of explosions - I was pretty amazed that the basic structure stood up to it. It actually gave me a little more confidence in nukes (and I'm a bit of a fence-sitter, given all the pros and cons).

[????]

You know where it is on the paint by numbers politics of the idealist huge.....a no no. back in the real world I agree with you.

[malumbu]

Screwed by the Thatcher government, the Major government, the Blair government, the Brown government and this shower.

In the late 80s we had in-house capabality based on 40 years and more experience. OK in our rush to make fissile grade material for the independent nuclear deterrednt we'd cut a few corners in design and construction and put up too much barbed wire, and keeping in British meant that we'd kept our own inherently safe gas cooled reactors rather than looking at world standard. We'd scored a further home goal by not fixing on one design.

Anyway Thatch said we'd build one American design PWR per year into the 90s. Then she changed her mind, and decided to waste much of our own natural resource, methane, on power generation.

We'd never had it so good, as we all rushed to buy our shares in the privitised utility and generation companies. Oh how short sited. Foreign ownernship means that we have no energy security. The foibles of the market mean that our energy prices are set by Gulf royals, Russian Oligarchs and unstable states. When we still produce much of our own gas and do not import any Russian (my dear readers we are so connected to Norweigian supplies that despite what I said about energy security, we can still get it direct from Scandanavia).

So back to nuclear - in the late 80s BNFL were the biggest earners of Yen, now we'd expect Japan to build our power stations for us. Nulcear, and in fact all energy, does not mix with the market. A whole generation of nuclear energineers lost. Shame on you.

I've written government papers on this - not quite with the same personal views I hasten to add.

And German brown coal is shite. Ours was quite good but just cheaper to export. And on an anti-nuclear stance I marched for CND and would still happily unilaterally disarm. Interesting that I can divorce nuclear weapons from nuclear power.

[Marmora Man]

I have long been a strong proponent of nuclear power. It's safe, reliable and, relatively, cheap. The clean up costs are vastly overstated simply because the majority of the public and far too many decision makers are I'll informed and equate reactors with weaponry.

Having lived cheek by jowl with a working nuclear reactor for the best part of a 20 year navy career I am fully confident that they offer the best way ahead for the safe provision of energy over the next 50 years. By which time I have every confidence that science and mankind will have solved the nuclear fusion challenge which will, in turn, solve the nuclear waste problem. T'will also reduce the argument for mediaeval technology of windmills blighting our countryside.

It's not often you find me arguing alongside Monbiot & Hugenot.

[Annette Curtain]

Professor Valerie Beral is worth a read & listen.

Amongst other things, she talks about Nuclear power plants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qdw1k

[Saffron]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>... Interesting

> that I can divorce nuclear weapons from nuclear

> power.

Do they generally get lumped together? How odd. They are such very different things.

[malumbu]

The British nuclear power programme was set-up to produce weapons grade plutonium as well as generate power (the first generation of Magnox nuclear reactors, starting with Calder Hall at Windscale and followed by Chapel Cross over the border).

The Americans did not trust us to share the bomb technology (even though British researchers were an essential part of the 'Manhatton prject' that developed the first nuclear weapons). They offered us their bombs but we said "nuts" we will make our own plutonium. Similarly the French went ahead with a nuclear power and weapons programme.

All the top nuclear physicists in the early days of nuclear power would have had an interst in weapons.

Nuclear power plants and research establishments had barbed wire and armed guards.

The nuclear power programme, perhaps up to 20 years ago, was synonynous with weapons.

If you belonged to the CND in the 50s - 80s you would have been most likely against nulcear power. And later you would have worn a rainbow jumper, a little goatee and drove a 2CV.

[Saffron]

Ah, I see what you mean in a developmental/practical sense. I was thinking more in a philosophical sense.