Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision
It doesn’t matter which UK news source you choose. It’s a story that overshadows all others today.
Britain has decided to return to nuclear power in a big way. No matter that one of our former environment ministers was interviewed earlier and stated categorically what an absolutely ill-advised decsision this is. Gordon Brown’s government have today made the nuclear decision official.
One of the arguments for this decision is that the government states that it will help them tackle CO2 emissions.
Yet, according to experts, the reduction in emissions will be a hideously pathetic … 4%. That’s no argument for nuclear.
We trail the rest of Europe when it comes to investment in sustainable energy. We currently glean just 4% of our energy from sustainable sources, yet live on a windswept isle surrounded by strong tides courtesy of the gulf stream. Compare this with, for excample, Sweden, where between 35 and 50% of their energy sourced is sustainable.
Caroline Lucas of the UK’s Green Party sums it up succinctly:
“[The government are] very successfully pulling the wool over people’s eyes over whether or not we need nuclear. The bottom line is there are much greater, safer, quicker, cheaper ways of achieving greater emission cuts than going down the nuclear route. Plus the signal that it gives out internationally is an incredibly negative one”
For more details on this story, please click on the following links:
BBC - includes the opinions of experts - including Ms Lucas’ as quoted above.
Having just moved out of the UK it doesn’t surprise me that this was the decision. On such a small island what will we/you do with the nuclear waste? Exporting it out is just moving the problem, not solving it.
Thanks for the update, Pem. Some British officials certaintly seemed hell-bent on going this route, no matter what the public objections might be.
Nuclear power is undoubtedly an emotionally charged topic, and it gets even moreso when serious environmentalists and climate-change experts like James Lovelock propose nuclear as our only immediate solution to preventing global disaster.
I’d be very interested to hear your comments in a similar discussion we’re having at Planetsave on “Is Nuclear Power the Answer to Climate Change?” Please stop by if you have a chance, and thanks again for the info!
What does the decision mean in real terms? 10 new nuclear plants int he next two decades? 20?
[...] let me refer you to Pem Charnley’s article, “Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision“, an incisive look at the furor growing in the UK with some excellent links to UK media [...]
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
David, it appears that 10 will be built by 2020.
Noooooo! Stoppppp! What are they thinking?
Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision…
This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….
[...] The laser is designed to fire at a tiny hydrogen capsule and cause a fusion reaction, the kind that powers the sun as well as our thermonuclear arsenal. Theoretically the intense energy released could be captured and provide a huge amount of clean energy. However, we’ve heard big promises from nuclear before. [...]
I’m glad to hear my government had enough sense to do this at least.
This article is horrifically unrevealing, it suggest a 4% drop in CO2 from nuclear, but backs this up with no facts.
It also fails to mention whether renewable sources could do anything like the same(they can’t at the current time, and to get them up to standard will take years and millions of pounds).
I’m not against renewable, it is the way to go.
But it’s just not feasible yet.
Also, people assume nuclear energy is bad, without ever thinking for themselves, if all our energy was nuclear, the background radiation levels would hardly increase at all.
Phil, I had hoped that the links I provided would prove more than revealing. They are there to take the story further and provide answers to any questions you may have.
My intention with this post was to flag the story for a US audience and point them in the right directions.
Certainly, I thought by remarking that Sweden enjoys upto 50% sustainable energy, the UK, being prone to strong tides and winds could benefit rather more from energy sources other than nuclear.
With regards to background radiation levels, I don’t want them rising at all thanks. And until I am convinced that nuclear waste doesn’t poison the planet, I maintain that it is a very dirty form of energy.