Major Culture Change Needed To ‘Keep The Lights On’, Say Greens
06 October 2005 - Caroline Lucas MEP of the Green Party commented today: “Now is the time to recognize both the challenges of global warming and the dangers inherent in the UK’s continuing reliance on oil, the supply of which is vulnerable in political and military terms.
“Now is the time for an environmental leadership that sees these circumstances as an opportunity for a sea change to sustainable, local and renewable low-carbon energy systems that do not leave a hazardous legacy for future generations.”
“Fossil fuels are not the only thing in short supply: so is cash. The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from creating a low-carbon economy, the real solution to global warming.”
Economic concerns
Nuclear power is more expensive, after state subsidies are considered
Construction, reprocessing and decommissioning costs are enormous: more than £110 bn according to one estimate
Historic cost overruns in previous projects
Greater emphasis needs to be given to reducing demand for power. Power losses during transmission bring benefits to having smaller generating sources serving local communities.
Environmental concerns
No safe storage method for radioactive materials, including waste
Commissioning, operating and decommissioning will have major environmental impact
Health impact
Routine discharges from nuclear power stations (not to mention accidents and spillage) increase risk of cancers and leukaemia
Security
Would create large amounts of plutonium that can be used in nuclear weapons, increasing risk of nuclear proliferation
Power stations and transit and storage of nuclear materials are a target for terrorist attack
“The bottom line of all this is even setting aside its accident risks, proliferation dangers and waste problems, nuclear power is just plain too expensive and in all likelihood always will be.”
“The astronomical costs of a new nuclear power programme would divert money away from the real, long-term solutions to global warming. Conservation measures are far more efficient on a monetary basis than nuclear power investment. Renewable energy sources can be exploited – wind, tides, geothermal heat and solar influx will not run out, unlike uranium.
“If government directs investment towards the nuclear industry, the willingness of the private sector to invest in efficiency or renewables will be diminished. Investment (or government subsidy) in nuclear power will distort the energy market by artificially depressing electricity prices whilst increasing the financial burden on the taxpayer.”
Energy produced from nuclear power is not CO2 free
Government endorsement and investment in a nuclear new buid programme will undermine progress in developing the renewable energy sector. As such, a decision to endorse the nuclear option would be contrary to the aspiration of the Energy White paper, which include, by 2020:
- much more local generation
- much more micro-generation
- energy efficieny improvements will have reduced demand overall
ENDS
