Government said it is 'satisfied' that disposing of radioactive waste will not be a problem
Related Articles
- This week's changes to the Ecologist.org
- Climate change 'will wreak havoc on Britain's coastline by 2050'
- Huhne accused of 'hypocrisy' for promoting offshore oil in Scotland and Arctic
- Tanzania urged to accept World Bank funding of alternative Serengeti highway route
- UK's 'fracking' gas-extraction is not unconventional says industry
Government approves ten new sites for nuclear power
Ecologist
9th November, 2009
Environmental groups say nuclear power will create a legacy of waste and undermine the UK's drive towards an economy based on renewable energy
The Government has approved ten new sites for nuclear power plants to be built over the next 15 years.
Speaking to MPs today, Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Miliband said even with ambitious targets for renewable energy there would be a need for 'additional new, non-renewable power'.
The ten sites given approval were Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa. A proposed site at Dungeness in Kent was ruled out because of concerns about the impact on the unique local ecosystem and concerns about 'coastal erosion and associated flood risk'.
Alternative sites at Kingsnorth, Druridge Bay and Owston Ferry were also ruled out.
Nuclear waste
Miliband also said his department had been satisfied that 'effective arrangements to manage and dispose of the waste from new nuclear power stations can be put in place'.
However, WWF, Friends of the Earth and the Government's own sustainability watchdog said the issue of radioactive waste had not been resolved.
'It will create a legacy of radioactive waste that will remain highly dangerous for thousands of years and cost taxpayers billions of pounds to manage,' said a spokesperson for Friends of the Earth.
WWF agreed and said the 'rush to green-light' new nuclear power stations would undermine the UK's ability to build a truly sustainable low-carbon future.
Will Day, chair of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), the Government's green watchdog, has previously told the Ecologist of his concerns about the expansion of nuclear power in the UK.
Speaking today, he said he feared the Government was 'locking in another generation to big-box grid projects'.
He said the country should instead investing in more efficient, smart or local grid power generation.
Useful links
Statement on nuclear power
| READ MORE... | |
 |
SPECIAL CONTENT Letter: everyone suffers from new nuclear It's not just the UK that suffers from the Government's new fervour for nuclear power; communities worldwide will feel the folly of the move... |
 |
NEWS UK needs electric cars and nuclear power, says watchdog Government climate watchdog says a 'step change' in Government policy is needed to meet carbon reduction targets |
 |
NEWS No nuclear but door open for GM, says new SDC chief Will Day Sustainability in danger of becoming jargon, says newly appointed green watchdog chief |
 |
NEWS UK urged to triple nuclear power Former Minister's call to triple the contribution of nuclear power in UK dismissed as scare tactics |
Previous Articles...
Users Comments
Re: Government approves ten new sites for nuclear powerNuclear Energy is Part of the Problem
Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair came out in favour of more nuclear power stations in the UK, and various governments are to spend £6.6 billion on The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Now, instead of Chernobyl exploding with the power of an Atom Bomb, we are to have power stations going off with the force of a Hydrogen Bomb. The ITER will be too little and too late.
As well as being dangerous, nuclear generated electricity is four times more expensive than most alternatives, not taking into account the cost of safely storing dangerous levels of radioactive waste for a billion years. It also takes more energy to fuel, build, and run nuclear power stations than they ever generate. Uranium alone takes more energy to produce than it will ever generate. The only reason that nuclear electricity looks competitive in the UK is because it is heavily subsidised by a European Grant. (This Grant is not big enough to dispose of the dangerous waste safely, and the technology still has not been developed to do so. At the moment it is estimated that the UK bill for disposing of nuclear waste is some £70 billion). Hazardous materials from the milling would take four times the amount of energy that was needed to extract the ore to clean up properly afterwards, so this is not attempted, although it should be.
Because there is no logic to having nuclear power stations except in order to build nuclear weapons, and the Cold War is over, we can only assume that NATO wishes to have another arms race with either Russia or China. The best advice that can be given to both countries is to warm relations between each other and not get involved in the economic drag of another arms race.
If the plan to double the number of nuclear power stations comes to fruition then there is only enough uranium for twenty years, we will have ''peak uranium'' soon. In addition, the new report by Environmental Economist and Author David Fleming concludes that at current levels of uranium ore deposits, the nuclear industry will need to divert all its energy generated to cleaning up its waste by 2025. Just how desperate are governments to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
|
Post a Comment
Members
