Nuclear Power is a hazard to this country, our economy, and the environment. The government has proposed to replace the United Kingdom’s 23 nuclear power stations with more nuclear reactors, these proposals are intrinsically flawed.

The financial costs are unsustainable. The clean up alone of the UK’s current reactors is costing in excess of 60 billion pounds, and will take hundreds of years. Real effects of radioactive waste from these sites will however be present for hundreds of thousands of years. This clean up money alone, could buy and install enough wind turbines to meet 20 percent of the UK’s electricity needs, which is two thirds of our current nuclear consumption.

Uranium is in short supply. If 30% of the world’s current electricity needs were fuelled by Uranium, then reserves of high-grade ore would be depleted within a decade. CO2 emissions from lower grade ore are higher than burning fossil fuels directly - Meaning nuclear energy will not be carbon free or environmentally sustainable.

The alternative is a sustainable and economically favourable development.` The British Wind Energy Association demonstrate that over 20 percent of the UK’s electricity supply can be generated from wind, wave and tidal resources by 2020. This renewable contribution is only deliverable if the right financial mechanisms are implemented in renewables. Massive investment in nuclear power would constrict, if not reduce investment in renewables - Stagnating CO2 free energy development within the UK.

The UK has impressive wave and tidal resources, providing an asset with the potential to generate over 10 percent of the UK power market. North sea natural gas production is decreasing by nearly 10 percent every year. With the construction and maintenance of offshore tidal and wind power, we can employ hundreds of off shore workers, left redundant from our collapsing oil and gas production sectors.

We must resist the attempts of this government to derail forward thinking energy alternatives, and commit our country to more nuclear waste which our children will have to pay for. Just say ‘No’.

The Big Problem with Nuclear Power

Terrorism

The Oxford Research Group that terrorists could use nuclear power plants to their advantage in the following ways:

• Stealing fissile material and making a primitive nuclear bomb.
• Attacking a nuclear power reactor or waste-fuel cooling pond.
• Attacking tanks at Sellafield holding high-level radioactive liquid waste.
• Attacking a plutonium store at Sellafield or other locations in the UK.
• Attacking nuclear fuel or waste in transit.
• Using a 'dirty bomb', to spread radioactive material

Accidents

There have been a constant stream of accidents at nuclear power stations - they are not frequent but each accident has potential deadly effects.

• 1977 Dounreay, UK - an explosion in a shaft dug to store waste exploded, contaminating a large area of sea and coastline.
• 1979 Three Mile Island, USA - water cooling systems failed and the plant only narrowly avoided a complete meltdown.
• 1986 Chernobyl, USSR - One of the plant's reactors exploded, sending a plume of radioactive particles across most of Europe. Parts of the UK are still contaminated by the fallout from Chernobyl.
• 1995 Monju, Japan - a serious sodium leak, which ignited and melted parts of the infrastructure, led to this experimental fast-breeder reactor being shut down.
• 1999 Tokaimura, Japan - a mistake led to 6 times the normal amount of uranium being added to a tank of nitric acid, and the release of large amounts of radioactive gas.
• 2001 Chapelcross, UK - fuel rods were dropped during removal and a major fire was only just avoided.
• 2005 THORP, UK - 20 tonnes of highly radioactive nitric acid containing plutonium and uranium leaked from a cracked pipe into a secondary container, leading to the shut-down of the reprocessing plant, which has not yet reopened.

Waste

In the UK we already have 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste in storage, and the introduction of new power stations will lead to a higher volume and a doubling of the amount of radioactivity in our nuclear waste legacy.

If the Romans had invented nuclear power, the spent fuel from their power stations would still be around today - and still be just as dangerous as it was 2,000 years ago.

No long-term solution to the waste problem has been found.

Cost

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has revised its estimate of the cost of our current store of nuclear waste several times - always upwards, and most recently to £70 billion.

That's more than £1,000 for every person in the country

Timing

Is nuclear the quick-fix solution we are told it is? No. Even if the decision to build new nuclear power stations was made today, and billions of pounds put into it tomorrow, we still wouldn't see one watt of new power in our electricity grid for at least 10 years (industry estimates).

On the other hand, a programme of small-scale renewables would see new capacity coming online within months, and energy-saving benefits could begin straight away.

Time to implementation:

• Nuclear power station - 10 years
• Gas-fired power station - 3 years
• Windfarm - 1-3 years
• Domestic micro-generation - 2-4 weeks
• Changing to an energy-saving lightbulb - 10 seconds

Jobs

Nuclear power provides fewer jobs than any other form of energy generation - despite costing the tax payer more.

Not a long-term solution

Even if we wanted to, we couldn't rely on nuclear power for long, particularly if other countries followed us and started their own nuclear programmes.

At current rates of use, it is estimated that the world's reserves of viable uranium ore will be exhausted within 50 years.

If we were to expand nuclear power, the rate of depletion would be even higher.

Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation said, "Nuclear also has a dirty little secret: startlingly there's only a few decades left of the proven high-grade uranium ore it needs for fuel.

"It's also far less climate-friendly than claimed. Once low-grade ore is used, costs go up and all the energy used from mining to decommissioning means it can lead to more carbon emissions than fossil fuel-powered gas generators."

Its not publicly-supported

BC online poll - December 2005

Should there be a new generation of nuclear reactors?

• Yes - 28%
• No - 72%

31,071 votes cast

This suggests that when the public face having a nuclear reactor built in their area, their will be a major backlash against the government.

No solution to climate change

The idea that nuclear power is a magic wand to fight climate change is a dangerous myth.

Nuclear provides only 3.6% of our total energy needs in the UK. Even doubling our nuclear capacity would only result in an 8% reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions.

Worldwide, nuclear power provides just 2.5% of our current energy supply.

To reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by the amount necessary under the Kyoto targets, we would need 1500 power stations, which would result in uranium becoming scarce within just 3 years.

And nuclear is not emissions-free. The mining, processing and transportation of uranium, the building of nuclear power stations, and the transport and storage of nuclear waste, all use fossil fuels and lead to carbon dioxide emissions.

Looking at the whole life cycle of nuclear power, we find that it emits, per unit of electricity generated, 20-40% the carbon dioxide of a gas-fired power station.

Who do you trust?

Who is in the pro-nuclear lobby, and how much are they being paid?

We can't answer the second question without access to the bank accounts of those concerned, but we do know that the nuclear industry has hired some top spin-doctors to push a number of old myths about the prospects for nuclear power.

• There are no viable alternatives - false
• Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases - false
• There is a plentiful supply of nuclear fuel - false
• Nuclear power is economically viable - false
• There are no other major problems associated with nuclear power - false

And how deep does this go? The government and the nuclear industry appear to be getting along very well at the moment, for reasons unclear until perhaps after this year's energy review.

In the 2006 New Year's Honours list, Sir Alastair Montague, chair of nuclear company British Energy, was given a top honour for "services to the nuclear industry", just months before a decision will be made on his industry's future.

There was also an award for Paul Cuttill, chief operating officer of EDF energy, which runs 59 nuclear reactors in France and wants to expand here.

Don't Be Fooled By The Economic Argument

What does the government say?

The Government's 2003 Energy White Paper concluded that nuclear power is not the way to go. Now the government are claiming that 'the economics of nuclear now look more positive than at the time of the 2003 Energy White Paper'.

In their energy review, the government stress that nuclear plants must be financed and operated by the finance sector, without any subsidy by UK tax payers. The government assumes that high gas prices will continue which will make nuclear relatively more attractive and that a reliable and long-term market will emerge to place a 'charge' on carbon.

There are 3 problems with the government's economic stance

1. The idea that tax payers won't have to subsidise new nuclear power plants is unattainable. Nuclear is astronomically expensive and past experience shows that predicted costs tend to rise enormously when projects actually begin. Not a single nuclear power plant has come in on budget. Therefore the private sector won't invest in nuclear power unless the government guarantee public sector underwriting.

Altough Blair has pledged no financial support from the tax payer, he can go for hidden subsidies such as government guarantees to cover project risk and export guarantees which means the treasury will pay up if the costs suddenly rise. Previously, in cases where the project was initially privately financed, the government has had to bail out companies at a later date, which is what happened with British Energy. The government has paid out £1.5 billion to British Energy to date, more than the NHS deficit!

2) The continuation of high gas prices Gas prices will continue to rise as supplies run out. But wny should nuclear be a solution, rather than renewables?

3) The carbon charge will make traditional sources (fossil fuels) even more expensive Nuclear is not carbon-emission free. Nuclear produces 50% more greenhouse gas emissions than wind power.

What Can You Do?

Register your views with the Labour Party! Enter their online poll.

Sign the Greenpeace petition

Get your MP to sign EDM 2204 which urges the government to choose major investment in renewable energy over new nuclear power plants.

Sign the Europe wide million signature petition against nuclear power.

Links

Green Energy Works - Green Party Energy Campaign website - useful information and ways to act

George Monbiot article, Guardian, Tuesday 11th July 2006: 'Sure, nuclear is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it'

No 2 Nuclear Power - News and Information about the UK Nuclear Industry