|
|
Regular
Posts: 79
Location: Cromarty | Unfortunately George Monbiot, who I have always had great respect for, has somehow lost the plot and decided to support nuclear power. This is surprising and very sad. It is also thoroughly irresponsible. I'm sorry, George, but you can cross me off your fan club.
He seems to have decided that nuclear power is the only way we will generate enough electricity to provide for our ever-growing demands in future and that it isn't really as bad as it's painted. He considers it to be a low-carbon energy source and compares it to generating electricity using coal as if these were the only two options. He even suggests that developing the electricity transmission infrastructure for renewables to take as long to build as a nuclear power station! I am involved in a small way in SSE's current transmission network upgrade and I can assure eveyone that this is rubbish.
Just to re-state the arguments against Monbiot:
1. Nuclear power depends on uranium, mined and transported across the world. How good is that for the miners let alone the carbon footprint of the transportation?
2. It costs a fortune and takes years to build and is only viable at all with massive government subsidies. Private capital doesn't buy it and they are right not to.
3. However bland the industry's assurances on safety etc, its track record isn't good and has been characterised by endless cover-ups of the truth. Look at the contamination around Dounreay or Calder Hall / Windscale / Sellafield (why is it necessary to change the name every few years).
We don't yet know the extent of the nuclear disaster in Japan, but it is very serious, with radioactivity from the plant (in small does admittedly) already being found right round the world. These levels may be 'harmless' to humans but we have no information about how harmless it is to the environment at large. We don't know because we don't have the data. I won't ever forget years ago meeting children from Chernobyl who had leukaemia and had come to the UK for respite care.
4. Nuclear is the ultimate polluter of the planet. The iodine may have a short half-life but other nuclear materials don't decay so quickly. The reactors in Japan will have to be cooled for years to come - and what will be done with the water used? All nuclear plants produce waste, some of which remains dangerous for thousands of years. We simply don't know what to do with it. Can anyone really justify producing more and more of this lethal stuff for our children to deal with for the sake of a power plant operating for a mere 30-odd years? George Monbiot compares the radioactivity from a coal plant to a nuclear but he completely fails to include this major aspect.
5. Nuclear power provides the materials for the ultimate weapon ever devised. The early power plants were in fact set up with this primary aim - electricity was a by-product. So more nuclear power means, at the very least, serious security issues and an increased terrorism threat. Although the UK nuclear industry has had its own armed and unaccountable police force for many years, fuel or waste can be stolen and used to make a dirty bomb. In the face of a terrorist threat to a nuclear plant, or to fuel or waste being transported, we can all say goodbye to any civil liberties we might still have left.
I'm sure there are many other reasons to reject nuclear power but these will do for me for the moment. Having up-to-now respected environmentalists like George Monbiot speaking up for this filthy technology simply discredits him. I'm sure he is genuine in what he says, but this time he is seriously mistaken. He needs to think again.
As has already been circulated to TBI, George is speaking at Findhorn's Universal Hall on 4 April. This clashes with a major TBI meeting but poerhaps someone will be able to go over there and tackle him before he does any more damage?
| |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 79
Location: Cromarty | I should just add that I have sent a version of my post above to george Monbiot himself and await his response.
| |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| I would add that most nuclear power plants are near the sea. Sellafield only a few feet above sea level and the problems with this are now only too apparent. OK we are not likely to experience tsumamis in this part of the world but hurricanes may well make a visit with increased global warming and storm surges could cause the same effects to a nuclear plant.
However see previous discussion on thorium. Its much safer, has a much shorter half life, can be smaller scale, needs less water and can therefore be put away from sea level. Its also much more abundant and is present in sea level. Plants can also be used to get rid of waste from conventional nuclear. It can't be used to make nuclear weapons. (the reason it hasn't been followed up much)
Maybe someone should go to the talk and question George, even if it does clash with ours. Daniel is keen if he can get there. | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| I'm not so sure about some of the arguments against nuclear power - e.g., the debate about subsidies seems to be just that, a debate (from what I've seen, I think the un-subsidised cost of nuclear power is similar to wind), the amount of fuel needed is very small, so the transport impact is also small, and the amount of waste produced is also small, albeit it remains a problem for a long time. And although there have been some very high profile accidents in nuclear power stations, the injuries and deaths resulting have been far less than those caused by coal mining, for example. Even hydro-electric doesn't have all that good a safety record. But it seems hypocritical in the extreme to tell other countries they shouldn't be developing nuclear because of the potential for weapons, and then go ahead and install it ourselves (and spend vast amounts of money maintaining our own nuclear arsenal). | |
| | |
Regular
Posts: 79
Location: Cromarty | I agree that hypocrisy and nuclear proliferation are good arguments against nuclear power.
I don't agree that the subsidies are similar to wind - they are generally hidden in various ways. The problem with nuclear waste is that it won't go away and none of the calculations seem to take into account the cost of managing it for hundreds if not thousands of years. So we are creating a long term liability for future generations.
Today we hear that the Japanese are going to release large amounts of radioactive water into the sea. We are always told that this will have no effect on human health, but there hasn't been much research done on the effects on other species or the biosphere.
Renewables do not have the security costs of nuclear either. Flying a plane into a turbine or two is not quite the same as flying one into a nuclear reactor.
John | |
| |
|
George Monbiot and Nuclear Power