[quote=Ron Allen]Would you state your objections to Nuclear Power here in a concise, easy to read format? [/quote] Ron, thank you for asking. Here goes. This is about as concise as I can make it. A fuller answer is on the link: Nuclear power/CO2 Nuclear Power ( NP) DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE: 1) Electricity Produced by Nuclear Power (NP) is not CO2 free "The use of nuclear power causes, at the end of the road and under the most favourable conditions, approximately one-third as much CO2-emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within four years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly." - ref: STORM & SMITH 2 Conventional NP offers an insignificant contribution to world energy needs The finite nature of uranium reserves mean that a fourfold expansion of the world's nuclear fleet would exhaust the known global reserves of uranium. It would produce maybe 5% (maybe less) of the world's energy needs for some thirty years, then that would be it. Breeder technology would offer a more significant amount, but 3 Fast Breeder technology means uncontrollable nuclear weapons proliferation The plutonium-driven fast breeder reactors could make a more significant contribution, but this would mean kissing goodbye to any notion of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorists, because there would be so much plutonium around, there is no way we could keep it from falling into the hands of terrorists. 4 NP possession now implies Nuclear War later No country has developed nuclear weapons without first having a nuclear power programme. That is what the fuss is about in Iran and North Korea. If we have weapons, we will inevitably use them at some time in the future, because no human system is perfect. America has already used them once, on the Japanese. US presidents have considered using them many times since Hiroshima. Next time they use them, there is a risk that everyone else will join in, producing a nuclear holocaust. The only way to avoid this is to get rid of nuclear weapons, which means we must get rid of nuclear power. 5 Nuclear Power is Not Insured UK NP stations carry £140 million of public liability insurance, and the Government would contribute an equal amount, but after that - tough luck if there is an MCA. Ironically, the planning Inspector ruled that we could not have a wind farm near Hinkley point NPS because a blade might break off... and damage the NPS. 6 Routine discharges of radioactive materials cause cancer There is a vast amount of writing on this subject, but it is not necessary to develop it here, since it could be argued that a few local cancers are a small price to pay if nuclear power saves us from the catastrophe of global warming, and the relatives of the cancer victims could be compensated. The low level Radiation Campaign is a useful site for this information: http://www.llrc.org/index.html 7 Nuclear Power Stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack 9/11 demonstrated the acute vulnerability of the structures of western civilisation to attack from terrorists motivated by suicidal religious convictions. We cannot hope that humane and rational considerations would inhibit terrorists from using the same technique on one or more NPS. It would be consistent with the modus operandi of Al-Qaeda to do this kind of high profile action. It is a moot point whether a jumbo jet would breach containment, but it would certainly disrupt the coolant circuits sufficiently to cause releases, and a critical incident (major meltdown) cannot be ruled out 8 The waste problem is not solved Some nuclear wastes have radioactivity that remains dangerous to human and animal health for 250,000 years. What ethical right do we have to dump that problem on our descendants for the sake of a few years worth of electricity? 9 NP stations are vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise They are mostly built near the sea, for cooling and waste discharge purposes. Sea level rise due to global warming will add a huge amount to the decommissioning costs. There are also problems with NPS cooled by river water with rivers drying up. 10 NP would suck funding away from the real long term solutions which are energy efficiency and renewable energy. Nuclear power was developed through massive state subsidies as part of the nuclear weapons development programme. These R+D costs are not included in conventional nuclear power costings. In the UK, these expenses were hidden from parliamentary inspection in the post-war public accounts as "Repairs to Public Buildings". NP was a spin-off of the nuclear weapons effort. The NP programme died off in the 90s, ironically not so much through the activities of the green lobby as through the policies of Mrs Thatcher, who although a staunch supporter of NP, insisted on privatising it. When the City took a look at the books, they did not like what they saw, and decided not to buy into it. There is a finite amount of money available to meet the costs of Global Warming. Energy Conservation is at least 7 times as effective in reducing CO2 emissions than NP. PV cladding on every house in Britain would produce more electricity than NP at a fraction of the cost.