Dangerous nuclear power not the answer
icWales - Dangerous nuclear power not the answer
Unions, business leaders and politicians say nuclear power should be considered as an energy source for the 21st century. Here, Gordon James of Friends of the Earth Cymru argues this technology should be consigned to the dustbin of history
THE call by David Rosser of CBI Wales in the pages of this newspaper last week for nuclear power to be considered as an energy option for Wales is seriously flawed and ought to be rejected.
It generates around 30% of Wales' electricity but, as electricity provides only 17% of our total energy requirement, the contribution of nuclear power amounts to around 6%.
Its ability to play a meaningful role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main climate changing gas, is therefore significantly less than is often claimed.
A major financial barrier to nuclear power is the problem of waste.
No solution has been found to safely dispose of this hazardous material, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has estimated that dealing with the existing waste from civil nuclear power will cost the UK taxpayer �60bn.
It is mystifying to see an organisation that champions free enterprise lobby for an energy source that has always been costlier than promised and has always had to rely on state subsidies.
Nuclear power is also unlikely to meet the CBI's requirement of providing "a secure and competitive energy supply".
The security of supply of electricity from nuclear power has always been undermined by technical problems resulting often in lengthy and costly shutdowns.
The Wylfa power station, for instance, has only operated at 56% of its full capacity since it opened.
To this must be added a further threat to security in the form of terrorism.
Another major flaw in the CBI's proposal is the failure to recognise that, while the output from Wylfa is due to end in five years time, it would take at least double that time for a new nuclear power station to be built.
This perceived energy gap in Wales can, however, be filled by renewable energy schemes.
Existing and proposed on-shore and off-shore wind farms could generate over 25% of Wales' electricity within five or six years.
Tidal lagoons in Swansea Bay and the Severn Estuary, which would not require any subsidy, could more than double this contribution from clean sources.
Smaller contributions could also be obtained from wave and solar power, and energy crops grown by Welsh farmers.
Other options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are also available for Wales.
The coal-fired power stations at Aberthaw and Uskmouth could be retrofitted with super-critical technologies and co-fired with biomass.
Gas-fired power stations are also likely to make an increasing contribution while the huge potential of combined heat and power systems is largely untapped.
We agree with Mr Rosser that more should be done to cut energy consumption.
More than 50% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions come directly or indirectly from buildings. Improved energy efficiency and small-scale renewable energy and CHP systems have to be given a far higher priority.
Catherine Mitchell of Warwick University Business School and an adviser to the government on energy matters, rejects nuclear power in favour of alternatives that are "cheaper, more flexible, less dangerous and more environmentally acceptable" and that "these exist in the form of renewables and energy efficiency". We agree.
Unions, business leaders and politicians say nuclear power should be considered as an energy source for the 21st century. Here, Gordon James of Friends of the Earth Cymru argues this technology should be consigned to the dustbin of history
THE call by David Rosser of CBI Wales in the pages of this newspaper last week for nuclear power to be considered as an energy option for Wales is seriously flawed and ought to be rejected.
It generates around 30% of Wales' electricity but, as electricity provides only 17% of our total energy requirement, the contribution of nuclear power amounts to around 6%.
Its ability to play a meaningful role in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main climate changing gas, is therefore significantly less than is often claimed.
A major financial barrier to nuclear power is the problem of waste.
No solution has been found to safely dispose of this hazardous material, and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has estimated that dealing with the existing waste from civil nuclear power will cost the UK taxpayer �60bn.
It is mystifying to see an organisation that champions free enterprise lobby for an energy source that has always been costlier than promised and has always had to rely on state subsidies.
Nuclear power is also unlikely to meet the CBI's requirement of providing "a secure and competitive energy supply".
The security of supply of electricity from nuclear power has always been undermined by technical problems resulting often in lengthy and costly shutdowns.
The Wylfa power station, for instance, has only operated at 56% of its full capacity since it opened.
To this must be added a further threat to security in the form of terrorism.
Another major flaw in the CBI's proposal is the failure to recognise that, while the output from Wylfa is due to end in five years time, it would take at least double that time for a new nuclear power station to be built.
This perceived energy gap in Wales can, however, be filled by renewable energy schemes.
Existing and proposed on-shore and off-shore wind farms could generate over 25% of Wales' electricity within five or six years.
Tidal lagoons in Swansea Bay and the Severn Estuary, which would not require any subsidy, could more than double this contribution from clean sources.
Smaller contributions could also be obtained from wave and solar power, and energy crops grown by Welsh farmers.
Other options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are also available for Wales.
The coal-fired power stations at Aberthaw and Uskmouth could be retrofitted with super-critical technologies and co-fired with biomass.
Gas-fired power stations are also likely to make an increasing contribution while the huge potential of combined heat and power systems is largely untapped.
We agree with Mr Rosser that more should be done to cut energy consumption.
More than 50% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions come directly or indirectly from buildings. Improved energy efficiency and small-scale renewable energy and CHP systems have to be given a far higher priority.
Catherine Mitchell of Warwick University Business School and an adviser to the government on energy matters, rejects nuclear power in favour of alternatives that are "cheaper, more flexible, less dangerous and more environmentally acceptable" and that "these exist in the form of renewables and energy efficiency". We agree.
posted by Marcel at 1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home