My students taught me that everything was personal - history, politics, foreign relations - but this approach creates boundaries as well as connections
Quote of the day
 NavigationOur writersPopular Articles |
 |
Environmentalism: bang goes thier nuclear argumentsThere may actually be a coherent and decent argument against building a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain - but the British environmentalist movement have not come up with one single one so far. Indeed, environmental arguments against nuclear power are devised solely from myths and ill-founded jurassic prejudice against new technology, which they appear to fear for no good reason. For example, one of the fiercest critics of the governments plan to build new nuclear power stations is Caroline Lucas MEP for the Green Party. As far as Dr Lucas is concerned securing Britain's future energy supply with state-of-the-art nuclear power stations is simply 'dangerous, irresponsible and costly distraction from the real challenge of tackling climate change' - but none of this is true. Indeed, Western nuclear power facilities are the safest and the most economically viable form of electricity production known to mankind. Don't take my word for it - just take a good look at the French nuclear industry who have been producing safe and cheap electricity from the atom for well over 30 years. Far from being 'dangerous, irresponsible and costly', French nuclear electricity production has been an undeniable success story. If anything, it is the likes of Dr Lucas that have been irresponsible, costly, and ultimately dangerous. Indeed, it is Dr Lucas who uses and abuses the politics of fear when she raises the spectra of international terrorism as a reason why Britain should not dabble with nuclear technology. It has been 30 years of such backward, environmentalist propaganda that has held back the development of nuclear technology in the UK. I think it is high time we put the greens anti-progressive and rubbish ideas where they belong, in the recycling dustbin of history.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-01-12 19:40
You would probably be fined
You would probably be fined for putting it in the wrong recycling bin. Not wholly true, Courtney
From memory I believe that a number of issues against nuclear power have been raised. The ultimate cost of waste disposal, the long timescale to have any impact on carbon emissions, the total likely impact being insufficient to warrant the development (4% Carbon reduction after 20 years), the overall cost and who pays for it if unsubsidised and the risk of terrorism involving nuclear materials. These arguments are both "coherent and decent" and should be taken into account when looking at all the options available. I think the nuclear option should have been backed long ago in order to have a muliplicity of power producing capabilities, but successive governments have avoided the hard decisions. Personally I think it should be backed now too, but I would rather it be done by reasoning rather than crude rhetoric. There should also be solid backing given to other energy production methods too, including wind, Hydro and wave power. 
Nuclear waste and its mythologies
Firstly Englishman, we need to get the size of nuclear waste into some sort of perspective here, and according to the World Nuclear Association 'nuclear waste is comparatively tiny in amount and highly manageable' compared to the huge amounts of highly toxic and radioactive waste produced by Western military complexes, and including hospital radioactive waste. Indeed, when it comes to radioactive and toxic waste it is everyday chemicals that produce greater volumes and represent a far greater problem for modern societies than nuclear waste because chemical toxicity remains constant, whereas nuclear radioactivity decays over time back to its natural levels. So what of the costs? Yes, disposing of nuclear waste is costly, however, what environmentalists fail to point out is the whole truth of the matter, which is, this cost does not impact on the price of electricity that has been produced. Indeed, the absolute costs of waste disposal according to the WNA does not make nuclear electricity production uneconomic simply because of the sheer amount of electricity produced and sold in relation to the amount of waste that is produced. In other words, this is the very reason why French nuclear electricity production is highly profitable, because waste disposal only represents 10% of its total costs, the rest is revenue earned. As to the question of carbon emissions I think environmentalist ought to be more realistic when it comes to solutions. It is true that wind power, solar energy or hydro-electric power can produce electricity with no carbon emissions - but so to can nuclear power. Except there is only one critical difference between nuclear generated electricity and the rest - nuclear can expand to potentially provide clean electricity on a grand global scale. Having said all that, to a certain extent I agree with you when you argue that as a society we should look 'at all the options available'. The first thing we need to do is to stop looking at nuclear power as if it was a competitor to the other forms of clean energy generation. Nuclear power needs to be viewed more as a partner if we are to meet our energy needs in the near and distant future. The truth is, we need a very sharp increase in new renewable energy supplies, but we also need to see a massive expansion of nuclear energy as well. nuclear waste
I agree the problem is managable but I would not underestimate the problem. Disposal of high level radiactive waste is very expensive and the deep disposal sites with sufficient long term geological stability are not easy to find and construct. This is seriously radioactive stuff and in a different league from hospital waste. Also, yes, it does radioactively decay over time but unfortunately rather a long time. Some products (like tritium) have a fairly short hazardous life but others are radioactive for over 1Million years! These problems are not solved but accepting responsibility for such things is not something you can simply trust to the industry which has no incentive to look beyond the likely life of its directors. |
|
Go Read... |
Posts: 467
Joined: 2004-05-05