The debate over nuclear power seems to have caused a little debate, and Leftwing Criminologist is perhaps correct to pull me up on my lack of response to the debate thus far. It isn’t rooted in a fear of debate, but simply through lack of time.
This post is deliberately in short note form (this is why the blog is called Kit Notes) because there are points that I do want to come back to. I think it’s also worthwhile pointing out that I’m not an expert on nuclear power; I’m a local government worker and did Media Studies at University, so I can’t really pretend to be one either. But hopefully I’ll have stimulated some debate, and perhaps clarify where I stand a bit better, too.
I’m always open to being convinced otherwise, so do please comment.
• Disposal of nuclear waste is a massive problem. Kate Ahrens is correct when she says that we simply don’t know how to store nuclear waste properly. I still think that it’s perhaps better for the environment, however, that such waste isn’t circulating in the air like power generation from coal or gas. It’s also worth making the point that there could be a use for spent uranium – perhaps not depleted uranium weapons, but social uses – think about the machines that we use in our daily lives that use radioactive materials. It’s worth the research, I think – and perhaps a better use of the time of nuclear researchers and institutions like QinetiQ.
• I am opposed to the new wave of nuclear power plants planned by the Brown government – even more so if they are in private hands. As I said in my initial post on the subject, I simply do not trust capitalism – whether free market or state regulated – to run nuclear power. If companies who are bidding to win the contracts, such as EDF and RWE, run the new plants with the same devil-may-care attitude companies like Initial in the NHS, then we are in serious danger.
• Renewable energy, such as wind, hydro, tidal etc would be a perfect solution to the problem, but it isn’t. The UK has a population of 60 million, and even if we covered every green space with wind turbines, it isn’t going to be enough, as they simply can’t produce enough energy to satisfy demand, even if they run on full capacity. I don’t mind wind turbines – they cover the Pennines and I always wondered at their grace and beauty when I crossed the Pennines to get into (gnnnnh) Yorkshire. And any objections to them because of middle class NIMBYist tripe should be head on. But they’re not enough.
• Following on from that, there is still waste produced from all forms of energy production. There are also issues relating to the efficiency of the electricity transmission network – the National Grid. This also needs to be looked at.
• I don’t buy into the hype surrounding carbon capture. “Clean Coal” is an inefficient method, and takes more energy to capture emissions than it warrants. There is also the question of what to do with that captured carbon – where will it go? Underground?
hi, the campaign group i’m involved with in north wales has quite a few renewable power experts in it and they make a pretty convincing arguement that renewables are a feasable alternative but one of the things that i’m not sure you’ve mentioned is also power conservation - under socialist planning we could produce better quality products that will use up less electricity.
anyway the local campaign website is here http://www.stop-wylfa.org - they have some links to stuff
ps. likewise i’m not an expert either the best we can do is try to grasp the basics. i did notice you weren’t advocating support for browns current plans. also if nuclear fusion (rather than fission which is what we currently have) became available i don’t think most of us would reject this technology
Hi All. At left-atomics we have a different view…first let me state I’m glad the left is discussing this. As Martin Thomas pointed out in his AWL article, historically socialists defended the peaceful use of atomic energy. But…to specifics.
First, I would also oppose the almost religeous advocacy of private nuclear power plants in the UK, as part of the Blair/Brown project. That’s a correct political stance any socialist should take. But does that mean, in fact, that the nuclear plants the gov’t DOES propose to be built should be opposed simply because the people can’t control them? I think not.
Development and engineering should not stop because it’s private. Even nuclear energy. I’m not for the capitalists being told to not build a car plant just because it’s not nationalized. It will be, that’s our job. In the meantime, there is no reason to stop them.
In fact, the newer plants proposed by the gov’t (The French EPR and the US AP1000…actually it’s Japanese but it’s more complicated than that) are so much better than what Britain has today. The UK chose a VERY unfortunate reactor to build in the 1960s and 70s. There simply is nothing good about them at all. But these new reactors ARE better. They are cheaper and they will have decomissioning costs built in. They need to be built so as to increase the nuclear share of Britains energy mix and less gas can be burned.
Renweables, solar, wind, etc can’t replace the aging nuclear, coal and gas plants in the UK. Even in Denmark and Germany, that boasts large percentatges of their power from wind, can only go to 20 to 25% of their generation. Why? Because they have to have nuclear or fossil back up or it’s not reliable. Nuclear is the ONLY way to rationalize the grid. Nothing else exists.
Waste. Waste is only waste if you throw it away. The French, and even some of Britains spent nuclear fuel can and should be recycled. ALL of it should be. None o it should be thrown away. There are lots of technologies out there that can create a lot less waste. The Canadian State run ACEL program DUPIC can actually BURN THE WASTE of most light water reactors. See:
http://www.niof.org/campaigns/dupic.htm
In the US, as anywhere, “waste” is only a problem in the minds of the advocates of throwing it away. This includes the US nucelar industry that has caved into anti nuclear demands to dispose of it (and then opposes any plan to actually bury the stuff). The US has 77,000 tons of high level waste..the stuff everyone is afraid of. This after 50 years of production. It would only fill a British football field to about 7 meters if laid out end to end. That’s it. Nuclear ‘waste’ is managed. It doesn’t exist in large quantities and every bit of it is accounted for.
What are th stakes? I don’t know about the UK but in the US, 30,000 people die a year, every year, because of coal. Coal is evil and needs to be phased out, replaced with nuclear. I think most anti-nuclear advocates don’t give a damn about this. They are so caught up with their renewable religious aspect they actually end up advovactng MORE coal like the Green Party in Germany has done.
Enough for now,
David Walters
The are planning to build a tidal lagoon in Wales from what I heard, it’s a really positive step forward!
The tidal lagoons are great and I endorse them. I believe they are called “barrages” there. They also have the capacity to store the water so it can be used 24 hours a day to varying, but at least predictable, degrees. They cannont take the place, however, of nuclear power plants. Britian still needs about 20 nuclear power plants to be built over the next 15 years anyway.
David