 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Nuclear power: for and againstDate: 31 March 2009 With the problem of climate change becoming more urgent by the day, the future of power generation in the UK has provoked considerable debate. In February 2009, a number of Britain's leading environmental campaigners publicly declared that they had come round to the view that nuclear power was essential in the effort to combat anthropogenic global warming. Elsewhere on the PSI website, one of those campaigners, PSI Visiting Research Fellow Stephen Tindale, former Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, explains his change of heart. Read Stephen's article here. Here, in response, PSI Senior Fellow Emeritus, Mayer Hillman, co-author of How We Can Save the Planet, argues that nuclear power is not the answer. Update: 7 April 2009 Read Stephen Tindale's response to Mayer Hillman here. Questioning the virtues of the dash for nuclear electricity Mayer HillmanThe issues raised in the debate on the best ways of generating electricity in the UK to match demand in the decades ahead have been laid out many times. The main focus has been on security of supply, depleting reserves of fuels, the cost implications, and the need to contribute to challenging targets set by Government for reducing carbon emissions. Most recently, greater attention has been paid to the role of nuclear power, stimulated by the transfer of support in its favour from former opponents. Five reservations appear to have been insufficiently highlighted in the discussion of what that role should be. First, both sides of the argument take demand for electricity as ‘a given’ which must be met by fossil or nuclear fuels, energy renewables, and greater efficiency in their use. We are told that here is no ‘magic bullet’ which can be relied upon to provide for all future demand, while the desirability of ensuring as wide ‘a mix’ as possible to minimise the risks of too great a dependence on any one source has been frequently spelled out. However, a significant proportion of that demand is predicated on a continuing growth in electricity-based activities such as the use of an increasing proportion of cars that will be powered from batteries. This approach ignores the considerable scope that exists for lowering the need for these activities. Second, the concept of the ‘mix’ frequently articulated in government circles can only be seen to be meaningful if appraisal of the alternatives is evaluated on a ‘level playing field’. There are strong grounds for asserting that the overall reduction of carbon emissions can be more speedily and cost-effectively achieved by such strategies as the introduction of a national programme of energy saving in buildings, and investment in other technologies such as concentrated solar power than through the much lengthier, costlier and riskier nuclear power route. Third, the assumption underlying support for a major nuclear power programme is that, by the date of its completion, say 2025 at the earliest, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not have exceeded the level which can be controlled through human intervention. But the most eminent scientists in the field calculate that, unless emissions are far more severely limited than such a programme would achieve in time, the outcome for the world’s climate will be catastrophic. Fourth, if the nuclear power option is acceptable for the UK, then it is unreasonable to object to its take-up by any country. It is not difficult to predict that such an outcome would be limited by skill shortages and declining reserves of uranium. Does this not also imply increasing risk? Insofar as there are no national boundaries to protect a country from the horrendous impact of the failure of an installation or its deliberate destruction, should countries be allowed to follow this route without the sanction of some international body that can absolutely assure the world that this will not occur? How would this work, given recent experience with Iran’s programme on nuclear power? Indeed the logic of the proponents of nuclear power in the UK points to an obligation on every country to act responsibly by also proceeding down this route for otherwise it would be contributing unnecessarily to climate change by continuing to burn fossil fuels! Fifth, at best, only a small proportion of the UK’s and indeed the world’s energy demands could be met in this way. In my view, it would be wholly immoral to put future generations at risk from exposure to the leakage of radioactive waste products (a still unresolved problem of nuclear power, in spite of 50 years of expensive research), simply because our generation does not yet appear to be prepared to countenance a system of rationing that would ensure that that risk did not have to be taken. It is clearly immoral, too, to burden them with the colossal debt entailed not only in having to pay what seems certain to be unknown but certainly extremely high costs of decommissioning the nuclear power plants when they are no longer in service and having to limit that risk by being obliged to take precautionary measures for thousands of years into the future. The costs of this are so high that no insurance company is prepared to cover for the possibility of an accident and governments now and way into the future will have to underwrite that risk without any democratic process of acquiescence on the part of the electorate being possible. In effect, this totally reprehensible legacy would be the outcome of our unwillingness to behave responsibly by living within the planet’s means and our fair share of it. To my mind, these concerns point strongly to the inadmissibility of the lines of reasoning of the new advocates of nuclear-based electricity generation Dr. Mayer Hillman is Senior Fellow Emeritus at Policy Studies Institute and author, with Tina Fawcett, of How We Can Save the Planet. |
 |
NewsChanging attitudes of older workers [added 17/02/2009] The challenge of climate change [added 17/03/2009] Workshop examines well-being at work [added 21/01/2009] Canadian academic discusses economics of citizenship [added 02/02/2009] Seminar series discusses work and social policy issues [added 28/11/2008] How to improve engagement with local services [added 11/11/2008] Michigan professor delivers memorial lecture [added 04/11/2008] PSI research influences welfare reform [added 12/08/2008] |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
Address: Policy Studies Institute, 50 Hanson Street, London, W1W 6UP
E-mail: 
Telephone: 020 7911 7500 | 
Home page: