|
|
|
The Kyoto protocol has been something of a double edged sword in that by striving to reduce CO2
emmisions, governments have put nuclear energy back on the agenda. Nuclear energy's claim to be
green is controversial to say the least. It is possibly sustainable, arguably renewable and
produces virtually no atmospheric pollution during the energy production stage. However nuclear
waste is a pollutant, as well as the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by the
large amount of energy required by transport, mining, plant construction and ultimately plant
decommissioning.
It is not even cheap unless countries were to embrace it on a truly massive scale as the French
have done. In any event until substantially more French nuclear power stations have gone post
production, it remains to be seen just how economic the French program really is.
And it is dangerous. Another Chernobyl maybe, thousands of small leaks definitely. We still have
no proper answer to the nuclear waste already produced. While all the proceedures regarding the
handling of nuclear materials and components are very well thought through and ridgedly adhered
to most of the time, none of these procedures are failsafe and there will never come a point when
they are. They involve humans and machines. What more needs to be said?
Some environmentalists have embraced nuclear energy because the threat from global warming does
outweigh the threat from nuclear energy. The lesser of two evils. Indeed the threat from global
warming is more of a promise and even the mildest outcome would dwarf Chernobyl and if any of
the more dire predictions come to pass Chernobyl would look about as consequential as a moterway
pile up.
The Switch2Help view is that embracing nuclear energy is a serious mistake. Firstly it is limited
to power stations and will do nothing whatsoever to reduce CO2 emmissions from cars and planes.
Yes it may postpone delay the day of doom but it won't cancel it and when it does come we will
will be lumbered with nuclear junk as well as having floods and storms and failing crops.
More to the point, it might be the lesser of two evils but why take any of the evils if there is
actually a good choice to make? We believe alternatives such as wind or solar will be better for
the UK than nuclear and that is in spite of poor levels of sunshine. Please visit the website of
VoxSolaris, our scientific advisors to find out more.
|
|
|
|
