A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government. Those of us opposed to nuclear energy are often accused of longing to return to a dimly lit stone age style past but I don’t know any greens who want to live in a cave, indeed have never yet met this green yeti anti-progress person that the pro nuclear lobby keep talking about.  Most of us just want to live within our means to ensure survival.

Personally I’m opposed to building nuclear power stations because they are dirty, dangerous, and expensive - the Government's failure to find a long-term solution to Britain's nuclear waste problem remains an important reason not to create more waste by building more reactors.

Plus we haven’t even scratched the surface what solar, wind, tidal and wood energy can do.  Also more emphasis must be put reducing the energy we use in the first place.  We could reduce emissions by over 60% without any loss in comfort or wellbeing. 
Besides, as Green MEP Dr Caroline Lucas explains; `nuclear power could only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a mere eight per cent - that's not much more than could be cut overnight by regulating to prevent six per cent of UK electricity being used to power machines left on standby’.

She continues, "a far greater impact on reducing CO2 emissions and securing our energy needs could be made through energy conservation: according to the EU's own figures, for example, a large percentage of Europe's existing primary demand for energy could be met through the implementation of energy efficiency measures using existing technologies.

"Nuclear energy is neither safe nor economically viable - quite the opposite. We simply can't shy away from the need to reduce energy demand and increase electricity generation from renewable sources: delivering new jobs and improved economic efficiency as we do so."

We’ve become so accustomed to guzzling energy it’s second nature.  In high streets all over Britain shops keep their doors wide open no matter how arctic the conditions outside and position their heaters right by the door in a desperate bid to attract debt ridden shoppers to buy more stuff they don’t need. 

Supermarkets heat the aisles but then use vast amounts of energy to freeze their chiller cabinets which are kept wide open.  Think of the energy they’d save if they covered the cabinets.  OK, it might make punters think twice about impulse buying, but most of us buy too much food and are too fat anyway.  But it’s unrealistic to expect supermarkets to willingly do something that might reduce their sales and profits.  If the government are as keen as they say to reduce carbon emissions they must leglislate to make it happen.  They can’t rely solely on the goodwill of businesses and individuals.

Unfortunately this eco profligacy is repeated in homes and offices worldwide.  Our society has built itself on the belief that energy is a bottomless resource.  And if we build nuclear power stations there will be no incentive for us to stop wasting energy. 

As Chris Busby, Green Party science and technology spokesman explains; "Britain has been generating radioactive waste for over 50 years yet no progress has been made on how to dispose of it. Current strategies for dealing with waste are unreliable, unsafe and ruinously expensive. Up and down the country, sites where nuclear waste is 'safely' incinerated, are already surrounded by areas with 'inexplicably' high rates of cancer and birth defects. In light of today's evidence those who see nuclear power as a solution to the problems of climate change are misguided and irresponsible."

"The failure to define long-term waste storage solutions is just one example of how the nuclear power industry has failed us", Busby who sits on the joint DEFRA/Department of Health Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) continued. "Rather than delivering cheap and clean energy it has cost the taxpayer dearly in subsidies and has given rise to concerns about safety, pollution and terrorist attacks"

"Nuclear energy poses an unacceptable risk to the well-being of both present and future generations - building more plants is indefensible. Instead we ought to focus on reducing our energy needs and promoting safe and zero-waste renewable alternatives such as wave, solar, wind and geothermal".

At this point I must come clean and admit my own part in the energy crisis.  I live in the top floor of a Victorian house which has, horrors, communal heating over which I have no control.  My saintly neighbour Chuck runs the house and controls the temperature, he is from Arizona and favours tropical temperatures - I fear I could fry an egg on his floor quite easily.  My requests to turn down the heating to a more British string saving temperature fall on deaf ears. 

You’d think I could turn my radiators off but due to the complexities of our Victorian heating system I can only turn off half of them.  My man with the spanner (aka S) has tried but tells me the system must be `drained’ which means all heating and water must be turned off for the entire house for a day.  My neighbours will have a fit.  Not only that but our knee tremblingly handsome plumber Bob, the only man in the world who understands the house plumbing and can do this terrible `draining’ has just come back from his sumptuous holiday home in Tenerife and decided to become a fireman.  I anticipate fires being lit by ladies all over Chelsea in a bid to stay in touch with Bob.  Perhaps I should just burn our house down and start again.  It would be a lot easier.

Still, I am determined to persevere and come spring will inveigle super handy S to have a go.  I can’t fight nuclear energy unless I do my bit in reducing my energy needs.  I must confess I am rather dreading the draining.  But we must all do our bit. 

Ps.  I don’t want to bang on about Bob but he really is quite extraordinary.  He once mended an air lock in my heating system by sucking one of my taps so hard that the water whooshed up from the basement and hey presto my water was running again.  I nearly fainted with admiration.  Really he will be wastedas a fireman. 

Click here for the Friends of the Earth’s report explaining why nuclear is not the answer. 

Also, read Helen Caldicott’s savage indictment of the nuclear power industry, Nuclear Power is not the Answer published by The New Press. 

NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER
Publisher: The New Press (2006); ISBN: 978-1-59558-067-2
Melbourne University Press (2006): ISBN 0522 85251 3
In a world torn apart by wars over oil, many politicians are increasingly looking for alternative sources of energy - and their leading choice is often nuclear. Among myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution (i.e., that it is "clean and green"), that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe. But the facts belie the barrage of nuclear industry propaganda:

• Nuclear power contributes to global warming
• The real costs of nuclear power are prohibitive (and taxpayers pick up most of them)
• There’s not enough uranium in the world to sustain long-term nuclear power
• Potential for a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits.

Trained as a physician, and - after four decades of antinuclear activism - thoroughly versed in the science of nuclear energy, the bestselling author of Nuclear Madness and Missile Envy here turns her attention from nuclear bombs to nuclear lightbulbs. As she makes meticulously clear in this damning book, the world cannot withstand either.
The edition published by Melbourne University Press contains a special preface for Australian readers.

Reviews

Guardian, 14 October 2006: Helen Caldicott's icily alarming indictment of the nuclear industry is limpid and expertly argued. Caldicott, a doctor by training, is especially rigorous on the carcinogenic hazards of nuclear waste ... read more.

Kansas City Star, 8 October 2006: If you’re going to read one book on the environment this fall, make it Helen Caldicott’s Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer ... a must-read for anyone interested in the subject ... read more.

Edmonton Journal, 10 September 2006: Helen Caldicott is to the international campaign against nuclear energy development what Stephen Lewis is to the international campaign to eradicate HIV-AIDS: thoroughly informed, intensely passionate, and completely committed to the cause. Of all her books, this may be Caldicott's most powerful yet ... read more.