Thursday, 10 January 2008

NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE RE-STARTS

The Government says it will support the building of new nuclear power stations. This is despite the fact that new nuclear stations would generate electricity at twice the price of electricity from offshore wind turbines. It is also true to say that private and public money lavished on nuclear power could create more sustainable jobs throughout Kent, rather than a costly new nuclear power station at Dungeness.

Steve Dawe comments: “Any company involved in creating new nuclear power stations in the UK can expect boycott action. The Government will almost certainly be taken to court again for the many biases suggested in its recent nuclear consultation, to which Kent Green Party responded(1). Every £1 spent on energy conservation is 7 times as effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions as every £1 spent on nuclear power. And the Government is lying when its says nuclear is a low-carbon technology as mining uranium is very energy-intensive(2)."

“The British Wind Energy Association has indicated that we can produce 8 times as much electricity as we use now from offshore wind alone. The employment potential for Ramsgate as a port serving the offshore wind industry is apparent. But energy conservation, according to the Association for the Conservation of Energy, could cut UK energy use by half. It could also provide more employment in every district in Kent. Similarly, better payments to householders for electricity they produce would lead to more renewable energy schemes for housing and more jobs.”

“The Government’s consultation documents suggest the problems associated with nuclear waste have been resolved. As scientists have noted, this is not true(3). Government claims that consumers will not have to pay for new nuclear power stations are open to challenge as costs associated with any new road or rail infrastructure for new stations are likely to be met by the taxpayer."

"Also, it has recently been revealed that the costs of decommissioning old nuclear power stations and dealing with existing nuclear waste are likely to placed on taxpayers through our electricity bills, which have been rising in recent years with oil and gas price increases(4). Since nuclear is only expected to deliver a 4% carbon cut after 2025, it is a waste of resources(5).”

FURTHER INFORMATION: Steve Dawe on 01732 355185 or 07747 036192. Contact address above. Notes:

1. See Nuclear Review document at www.kentgreenparty.org under Resources. Also note: The Government’s consultation documents suggest the problems associated with nuclear waste have been resolved. As scientists have noted, this is not true(3). Government claims that onsumers will not have to pay for new nuclear power stations are open to challenge as costs associated with any new road or rail infrastructure for new stations are likely to be met by the taxpayer. Also, it has recently been revealed that the costs of decommissioning old nuclear power stations and dealing with existing nuclear waste are likely to placed on taxpayers through our electricity bills, which have been rising in recent years with oil and gas price increases(4).

2. Typically, uranium is only about 0.1% of the ore in which it is found. This means considerable amounts of energy are needed to mine and refine it. Also, unlike wind and solar sources, uranium must be imported.

3. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/46270/story.htm

4. . The Guardian, 7th January 2008.

5. Greenpeace reaction to suggestions that the government will announce support for new nuclear power stations this week, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: "Going for nuclear allows politicians like Gordon Brown to project the impression that they are taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems when they are doing nothing of the sort. In reality new nuclear power stations simply will not solve our energy problems and that's because there's a lie at the heart of the government's energy policy. Nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. That's too little, and too late, while generations to come will be left with an expensive legacy of our nuclear waste to clean up. " Greenpeace Press Release 8th Jan 2008 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/governments-decision-on-new-nuclear-power-stations-20080108 Greenpeace Briefing: The Case Against Nuclear Power, 8th Jan 2008. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/nuclear/nuclear-power-briefing.pdf

1 comment:

hahajohnnyb said...

Whats wrong with nuke plants again?

What did you luddites expect when you made up Global Warming? That the rest of the World would simply forget that Nuclear power exists?

Wind Power is a Scam! Solar is uneconomical, so you dumb green weenies kinda tied the governments hands. But thats OK, nothing wrong with nuke power.