THIS summer I attended a conference: “No need for nuclear: the renewables are here”, with speakers from various universities from the UK, MPs, MEPs, a consultant on radioactivity dangers, an ecologist from the United States, and a couple of NGOs. I felt it was imperative that the public should know more on the subject of whether a new generation of nuclear power stations would serve the country well. The blunt answer is NO and that was the take home message after the conference. Let me elaborate.
The UK Government plans 16 GW from nuclear power by 2030, double what we have presently. Tax-payers will be on the hook for loan guarantees and accident liabilities, not to mention expensive electricity. The consortia are struggling to raise the equity, and one of the reactor vendors for Hinkley C has been found falsifying quality control records and is under investigation. Designs are behind schedule and budgets are running much higher. European utilities are getting out of nuclear, and EDF is the only one that is not, however the fact is that EDF has to meet the life extension of France’s nuclear power plants means it is overstretched to say the least. Many of the other new plants are facing similar problems, and as a whole the industry is looking sick.
Meanwhile the prices of renewables are falling and are much more popular with the public. Renewables do not rely on state guarantees and are not subject to the threats associated with nuclear power operation, accidents and radioactive waste. Along with the development of the smart grid, renewables can deliver a flexible and decentralised model for electricity. The very claim that only nuclear can deliver our base-load is bogus; a plant like Fukushima going down is more likely to cause the lights to go out.
Nuclear power is not a temporary solution to arrest climate change. The nuclear cycle from mining the ore, cement production for the buildings, dealing with the waste, and decommissioning is carbon intensive. Nuclear power generates less than 15 per cent of our electricity and insulation alone would save us that, since Britain has some of the worst insulated homes.
The nuclear industry is extremely secretive and would have us believe that there is nothing to fear with nuclear power. Independent scientific research says otherwise. Science has shown what is well known, that if you add radiation to a system, genes are damaged and nutrient cycling which determines the health and productivity of ecosystems is impaired. Radioactive material also escapes into the environment in the operation of these plants when a reactor is refuelled. A plume of radioactive gas is released into the air putting local communities at risk, particularly the unborn.
Sellafield as a facility which handles all the radioactive waste in the UK is inadequate and there is still no real solution for nuclear waste. So why is the UK contemplating more nuclear power? The legacy to date of nuclear power is to place intergenerational communities and the environment at risk.
Is Trident influencing the UK’s energy policy? Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have always been coupled. Nuclear power produces three components for use in a nuclear bomb; uranium, highly-enriched plutonium and tritium. Tritium, a gas with a radioactive half life of 12.5 years is an essential component of a boosted fission nuclear device such as the Trident warhead. Its relative short half life requires its continued production. Why else are we producing electricity from nuclear power when there are better alternatives? The 122 countries that voted to ban nuclear weapons at the UN general assembly in 2017 are clearly not being listened to. Possession of these weapons only gives us a sense of false security. Their use is not independent and would be catastrophic for the planet.
Joanna Nowicki
Forres
MIGHT I suggest that Nick Cole tries an excellent small Scottish company for his .scot domain, Calico in Cromarty? Having had a .net domain name through them for many years, we found the change to .scot in early 2015 no more expensive, and the only additional expense was our choice of carrying both for one year until everyone of any importance to us had learned to use .scot. Their back-up is also excellent. Help to boost a truly Scottish business.
Name and address supplied
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here