Nuclear Distraction

Written by Joshua Jones Saturday, 21 November 2009 13:47

Joshua Jones argues that nuclear power is not the solution our country needs...

This week, the government symbolically offered support to the nuclear solution, proposing ten new sites for power plants to be built by 2018. There is no doubt that such proposals are positive in showing resolve on the environment, particularly so close to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. However, a government endorsed proposal puts firm faith in nuclear power; faith which is in many ways largely misplaced.

The main question worth asking in terms of a new commitment towards nuclear power is why now? Yes, in these crucial times any kind of assertive environmental policy should be at least commended. But, all the nuclear niggles which were so catastrophically thrown into the public eye with Chernobyl in 1986 are yet to be eradicated. Nuclear power is not a solution but a further problem.

Nuclear is quite simply the capitalist’s dream as it operates under the dubious mantra, 'ask questions later'. As a quick-fix solution it seems perfect: the material has a massively high energy density, it is a reliable energy producer and it gives out fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. However, the industry is a work-in-progress and relying on it to solve a global environmental crisis is a huge risk.

The main concern is that of radioactive waste and the government’s current policy of burying it underground, the environmental equivalent of ‘sweeping it under the rug’. It doesn’t take an expert scientist to work out that such a policy is likely to have negative implications for our environment in the future.

There is also the problem of having stations around England and Wales which are potential weapons in themselves if tampered with. Terrorism is fresh in everyone’s mind and Greenpeace suggests that any nuclear power plant is a target for terrorists with the hope of causing an artificial meltdown. The fear of Iran as a nuclear threat is potent enough let alone the prospect of a threat in our own backyard.

This week’s proposals themselves imply inefficiency. Any plans featuring the terms ‘nuclear power station’ and ‘fast-tracked construction’ are cause for concern. As Chernobyl demonstrated, such construction would require calm rather than haste, something not readily available to politicians at this time of global environmental crisis.

Even your average Ed Milliband should be able to work out a more reasonable solution to the impending energy gap. Renewable energy sources currently take up less than three percent of Britain’s primary energy consumption; the lowest of all EU member states. This is a vast underachievement for an island-based country whose citizens complain daily about the wind.

Instead of putting unwarranted time and money into a form of energy which is both unstable and undeveloped, Britain should be exploring wind and wave power so as to secure a more long term solution to the climate change problem.

It is often argued that wind and wave are unreliable and lack energy density. However, Germany, now Europe’s largest economy, proves that this is a naive view at best. German scientists recently claimed that the country could power itself entirely through renewable energy.

It is also worth noting that to generate the total electricity for the UK annually, wind farms would need to take up only six percent of British land (an area of seventy square miles.) Also, this land would hardly be redundant for farming purposes. Such projections don’t even include offshore wind farms or hydroelectric power.

The prospect of renewable power is hardly one that suggests any kind of compromise on behalf of the UK economy or energy supply. On the contrary, Britain, by grace of its geography, has potential in abundance to be a major player in the Western world with a commitment to the clean energy route. Nuclear energy is non-renewable and therefore there is always the possibility of another energy gap occurring in the future. Why not commit ourselves to the infinite resources which the planet naturally and safely has to offer?
We are dealing with an environmental crisis caused by the capitalism fuelled industrialisation which began 200 years ago. Climate change provides an opportunity for a shift in attitude as well as energy supply.

In the search for a solution, we must not look for a stop gap in the form of nuclear power which is the current proposal. It would be more worthwhile for the country and the world to embrace renewable technologies which work in partnership with nature rather than acting as its master.

Comments

Add New