Skip to content


Why we should oppose nuclear power via Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Last Wednesday, Boris Johnson announced £525 million support for new nuclear power. In the coming weeks, he is expected to decide whether to approve a major new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. In this guest blog, CND Vice-President Dr Ian Fairlie explains why supporting nuclear power is the wrong decision.

[…]

The reality of the matter is that we are in the midst of a technological revolution that encompasses new forms of renewable energy, new ways of managing the Grid, new methods of energy storage, and new ways of energy conservation.

As a result, the cost of the renewables just keeps on falling, while nuclear becomes inexorably more expensive. To give just one example: offshore wind is already getting built at about £40/MWh, while the Hinkley C plant, were it ever completed, would deliver electricity at about £93/MWh.

The Prime Minister often repeats the myth that nuclear will curb carbon emissions. But the carbon footprint from nuclear’s fuel chain — including uranium mining, milling, U-235 enrichment, fuel fabrication, irradiation, radioactive waste conditioning, storage, packaging and final disposal — is astronomical. A recent study by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil environmental engineering at Stanford, estimates nuclear’s carbon footprint to be 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewable energy technologies.

Boris Johnson would do well to heed the views of the public. 46% of participants in the UK Climate Assembly, a group of British citizens convened by six Parliamentary Select Committees, strongly disagreed that nuclear could play a role in reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, with a further 18% undecided. Amongst the reasons for their scepticism were “cost, safety, and issues around waste storage and decommissioning.”

Johnson recites the common myth that the renewables will be unable to supply all our electricity needs. But over 100 academic studies indicate that this view is out-of-date and incorrect: the renewables can indeed supply all our electricity needs. There is simply no need for nuclear.

Beyond this, nuclear power cannot be separated from the problem of nuclear proliferation, as fissile materials for nuclear weapons originate from civil nuclear reactors and nuclear facilities. Countries like Pakistan, India and Israel obtained their nuclear weapons from civilian reactors.

This is merely one problem, albeit a serious one. Nuclear is also an extremely unsustainable energy source. This is partly due to uranium mining which creates mine and mill tailings resulting in pollution and despoilation problems. And although nuclear power has existed for about 70 years, not a single licensed facility exists to deal with these radioactive wastes which will remain dangerous for millennia. The one such facility currently under construction, in Finland, will costs more than the revenue generated by the nuclear fuel it will store.

Apart from the problems of proliferation and unsustainability, we must never forget the serious nuclear accidents at Windscale (now Sellafield) in 1957, Kyshtym in the former USSR also in 1957, Three Mile Island (US) in 1979, Chernobyl (USSR) in 1986, and Fukushima (Japan) in 2011.

[…]

Read more.

Posted in *English.

Tagged with , , , , , .


One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. محامي جدة says

    يأتي الاختيار الجيد والناجح دائمًا من العلم والمعرفة والوعي والإدراك. ربما كانت لدينا خيارات خلال حياتنا فشلت دون معرفة ، والزواج مثال واضح ، ولكن المعرفة والوعي لاختيار محامي في جدة ، ما هي الطرق الممكنة؟



Some HTML is OK

or, reply to this post via trackback.