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.
It is very sad how uneducated the vast majority of people are on nuclear power. Of all base-load power source options available, there are only two that are feasible in the foreseeable future: coal and nuclear. Coal is very cheap and safe, and current and future advancements in coal technology will allow it to become immensly cleaner. The only major issue with nuclear power is waste - other than that, it is clean, cheap, and the SAFEST base-load power option available. Please do research.
To quote you, Karl:
“The only major issue with nuclear power is waste. Other than that …”
Other than that? What do you mean “other than that?” You’ve just blithely glossed over the most hideous aspect! If there’s waste, how can you call it a “clean” source of energy?
Take a look at this piece to fully appreciate the costs of dealing with waste.
As a taster, the opening paragraph reads thus:
British taxpayers will have to fork out more than £30bn to clean up Sellafield, unpublicised official documents reveal. It is so contaminated that the process will take well over a century and, even then, the site will have to stay under “indefinite institutional control”.
Please click.
its a poor decision but mostly becuase of the risk and negligable benifits, regading what we would do with the waste product the UK already deals with a lot of the stuff we get sent from other countries, so its not AS big an issue
A video argument against nuclear power as a feasible climate change solution. It’s true… wind, solar, wave, geothermal, etc. seem very much preferable.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=badenwjlvw
The Basics of Solar Power For Your Home…
Solar power is an alternative energy source with tremendous economic and environmental benefits. If you’re considering it for your home, here are the basics….