We Don’t Need Nuclear Power

There has been a lot of promotion of nuclear power in recent years as the only option we have to cope with the energy crisis and environmental pollution. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that companies can make enormous profits from building nuclear energy power stations.

The argument is that nuclear energy is carbon free once construction is complete but it is very expensive to build and there are good reasons to have concerns about the safety issues.

As events in Japan have proved, it doesn’t matter how well prepared you think you are. You can never say with certainty that nuclear power production is safe. It simply isn’t.

Then there is the requirement to store the hazardous nuclear waste for a thousand years or more. How can anybody have any idea what might happen in the next thousand years and how can anybody make any sort of guess or assumption about the costs of maintaining a nuclear waste storage facility in a thousand years? How many companies do you know that are still in existence after 1,000 years? I’ll answer that. None, unless you include a few family or tribal farms which may still be in the same area after all this time.

Countries and government systems have changed enormously in the last thousand years so nobody can have any idea what will be the political system so far ahead. Can you imagine how we would feel if the Normans had, after invading Great Britain in 1066 AD, left huge piles of nuclear waste laying around expecting us to look after it? We would not be very impressed.

Nuclear power generation cannot be the right answer to our energy needs. We need to learn that energy is a valuable resource and not one to waste on lighting up empty office blocks at night. We should all conserve power and we would benefit by saving money on energy costs.

We still have a lot of energy available to us but that is no reason to go wasting it heating up the empty night sky. Energy conservation would save money, save energy and reduce the need for constantly adding to our electricity production facilities.

share save 171 16 We Dont Need Nuclear Power

Terrible Earthquake And Tsunami In Japan Must Lead To A Different Approach To Energy Supply And Use

The terrible tragedy Japan has suffered in recent days has been beamed across the word by the TV networks. The massive earthquake followed by an equally massive tsunami has shocked us all and demonstrated the enormous power of nature. As if this were not bad enough we have been horrified to see the battle taking place to prevent a nuclear catastrophe occurring with several nuclear power plants suffering severe damage and the potentially disastrous consequences of nuclear materials being released into the atmosphere.

The staff at those plants are acting herocially and they are risking their own lives in their attempts to get control of the nuclear reactions and contain the nuclear materials in a safe manner inside the containment vessels. We should all be appreciative that people are prepared to put their lives on the line in order to protect the people living in the areas that could otherwise be affected.

If things go well and the nuclear tragedy is averted we can be sure that proponents of Nuclear power will be saying that this has demonstrated how safe nuclear energy is because the crisis was controlled and no significant release of nuclear materials took place.

We should ll be impressed at the strength of the engineering and design of these plants which enabled them to withstand a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and to survive a huge tsunami. However, it also raises the question that we can never be sure that every risk is covered. There is no such thing as a totally safe nuclear power plant. Nature is all powerful and anything could happen at any time. We simply don’t know what it might be.

We all make choices based on risks verses rewards and nuclear energy is a tempting opportunity to get clean energy but there are questions about the true financial costs and we can only prepare for the obvious risks involved.

Events in Japan following the earthquake have shown that it is one thing to survive a natural disaster but another thing altogether to survive the consequences of that event. It appears that the earthquake itself caused relatively little serious damage but the tsunami that followed wiped towns and villages completely off the map. Nobody knows how many lives were lost but it must surely be tens of thousands.

The damage to the nuclear power plants appears to have been cause not by the earthquake, which they were designed to cope with, but rather the tsunami which seems to have damaged the cooling systems and auxiliary plant around the reactors.

Whatever the result of the heroic actions of the staff at these plants we must question the logic of having a nuclear power station anywhere near towns and cities, if we have them at all. The potential for disaster is huge and the risk of some natural disaster, or a man made one through war or terrorism, that has a consequential action of the release of nuclear materials into the environment is just too horrific to contemplate.

Solar energy may be initially more expensive, electricity produced by windmills may spoil the view but nuclear energy has the potential to wipe out significant numbers of people. Any government that considers that risk to be one worth taking needs to seriously consider what exactly they believe governments are for. Most of us would say that their priority task is to protect their people from potential harm.

Nuclear energy puts people at risk of harm and no matter how much care is taken in the design and manufacture of nuclear power stations nobody can ever be entirely sure that they are safe for the surrounding population because nobody knows what might happen in the future. Never believe anybody who says otherwise.

share save 171 16 Terrible Earthquake And Tsunami In Japan Must Lead To A Different Approach To Energy Supply And Use

Why Is Energy From Windmills Expensive

You have to wonder about the financial system we live in when energy generated for free by windmills costs more than energy from oil or coal.
It costs money to get coal or oil out of the ground. It costs money to transport them to where they are needed. So, how can electrical generation by windmills cost so much?

When you build a windmill all the costs are up front. You build the windmill and your income comes in payments for the energy produced in the years ahead. So the profit comes once all the costs have been paid off but once those costs are paid all the income is profit.

When a power generating windmill is planned the costs have to be worked out ahead of time. The progected lifespan of the machine will decide whether the windmill installation is viable.
A well contructed windmill tower could last for 100 years but you can be sure the estimates of costs assume it lasts a lot less time than that.

We need to look at the production of renewabl;e energy as a long term commitment and stop worrying about short term profits. This is why these things need to be managed by governments who can look at the long term benefits of renewable energy for everyone rather than companies who are looking for short term profits for shareholders.

share save 171 16 Why Is Energy From Windmills Expensive