Looking over the four advanced gas cooled reactors at Heysham A and B in North Lancashire, it’s easy to be overwhelmed by the stupidity of the nuclear option. It is enormously expensive, subject to very long delivery times, dependent on highly dangerous transport of nuclear materials through densely populated residential areas, dependent on a nuclear waste cycle that has yet to solve storage, disposal and after care problems and concentrates huge amounts of intensely dangerous materials at Sellafield in Cumbria. If discussion of the decades of scientific activity identifying links between nuclear installations and childhood leukaemia is factored into this, there is a powerful armoury of evidence and information that should lead us away from nuclear generation and towards a nuclear free future.
Voodoo economics can help us to understand this decision a little bit. Governments of both left and right have long been run on the strangest possible interpretation of economics. Roads are designed and built on the argument that they will create jobs (usually about 25 per inch) and no road proposal or government organisation has ever been able to produce the evidence that roads can work this magic. Other examples include the old chestnut “Expanding airports is good for UK PLC” even though all the data shows that the impact is a net outflow of investment and a large tourism deficit. Brits travelling abroad by air spend vastly more when abroad than inward bound tourists spend in Britain. Putting lots of taxpayer’s cash into the pockets of privatised railway operators is just as daft and is enthusiastically supported by New Labour.
Civilian nuclear power is the next best thing to flushing cash down the toilet. The total losses to the UK taxpayer to date from our love affair with nuclear power is £32 billion (see Myddelton, 2007). The £32 billion does not take into account past or future liabilities, decommissioning, or the heath damage of the current portfolio of nuclear sites. Greenpeace estimates that these future costs will be approximately £100 billion.
Government has tried hard to convince us that new build nuclear stations will be built by the private sector with no costs falling on the tax payer. This is, of course, complete nonsense and the taxpayer will end up bailing out nuclear build when it goes over-budget and over time and when it goes critical and when it needs to be decommissioned and when it needs extra security and when those who suffer health damage finally get through the court system and win punitive damages.
The tragedy of all this is how much more useful, climate friendly, job creating, health promoting and socially nurturing activities could be when supported by £32 billion plus £100 billion. There is no doubt whatsoever that we can insulate every building in Britain, sort out every appliance and deal with every aspect of energy conservation to reduce our demand for electricity to levels much lower than 2007. We can de-grid the grid, boost offshore wind and wave energy sources and follow Germany in its amazing achievements with “feed in tariffs” and household electricity production through PV. Any doubts about this can be cleared up by looking at Freiburg in southern Germany.
The problem with Gordon Brown’s nuclear strategy is bigger than the attack on health, the environment and fiscal prudence. It is a fundamental retreat from a vision of a supporting a resilient, healthy and locally vigorous society. All the green rhetoric in the world from our discredited grey parties cannot disguise the fact that they are pursuing a social and economic disaster.
Myddelton, D.R. (2007) They meant well: government project disasters, Institute of Economic Affairs, London
Kent Green Party’s response to the nuclear review is available at www.kentgreenparty.org under resources
Green Party Principal Speakers Derek Wall and Caroline Lucas have responded to the Nuclear decision. It can be found at: www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3273
▾
▾