Tweet

Archived press release


Go to our press releases area for our current press releases.

Blair must not back new nuclear power plants

21 November 2005

Friends of the Earth has reacted angrily to reports that "Britain will start building new civil nuclear power stations under plans backed by Tony Blair" [1], before a Government energy review has even begun.

Friends of the Earth's director, Tony Juniper said:

"Nuclear power is unnecessary, unsafe and uneconomic. The Government must invest in cleaner and safer alternatives to nuclear power, not waste yet more money on nuclear white elephants. Ministers should champion renewable energy and energy efficiency as the means to achieve a low carbon economy while at the same time creating jobs and export opportunities."

"Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change. It is expensive and leaves a legacy of deadly nuclear waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. UK tax-payers are already committed to a bill of more than £50 billion to clean up the nuclear mess we have already created. Adding to that cost would be financial madness, and divert resources that would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewables."

"Calls by the pro-nuclear CBI for a quick decision on new nuclear stations because of the energy crisis it claims we face this winter are based on false premises. Nuclear cannot be expected to make any difference for at least 15 years. CBI scaremongering may be diverting public debate in the short term, but it is losing the organisation credibility."

Nuclear power is not the solution to tackling climate change:

  • There are more cost effective and far safer ways to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions - the UK has very significant renewable energy resources while huge potential exists to reduce electricity demand through efficiency gains that would not affect our quality of life.

  • The Government could show global leadership on developing renewable resources and energy efficiency, rather than promoting nuclear power which would increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation around the world.

  • Nuclear power is expensive and has consistently proved more expensive than industry claims. In 2003, the Cabinet Office estimated that nuclear power would cost more per KWh than either on-shore or off-shore wind.

  • Nuclear power does not necessarily offer substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed doubling nuclear power generation in the UK would cut our greenhouse gas emissions by no more than eight per cent.

  • Nuclear power would not make the UK self-sufficient in energy, and thus would not guarantee security of supply. It won't replace gas, which we will increasingly get from Norway and the Netherlands. Nor will it replace oil, with much of our imports coming from Norway. We have significant renewable sources, including biomass, with which we can produce all our electricity.

  • Nuclear power creates nuclear waste which could pose threats to public safety for generations to come. No solution has been found for its disposal. Management of the waste is also expensive, so is the closure of stations and clean up of contaminated sites.

  • Nuclear energy only produces electricity and will not replace petrol or diesel as a fuel for cars, lorries, ships and planes - road transport is currently the source of around 22 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions, and aviation is the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions.

  • Nuclear power will not replace gas for heating our homes and for business - natural gas currently accounts for 33 per cent of our total final energy use.

  • Nuclear energy will not meet our short-term energy needs. Even if give the go-ahead, according to the nuclear industry, new nuclear power stations would not come on-line for an estimated 10-15 years. New nuclear can therefore do nothing to help the short term supply issues that the CBI and others claim is faced by the UK. Other options, such as a growth in renewable energy and energy efficiency are quicker and cheaper.

  • Nuclear power stations are a potential target for terrorists, while nuclear materials could fall into terrorist hands threatening the detonation by terrorist organisations of 'dirty bombs' or worse still crude nuclear weapons.

Note

1. Times 21 November 2005

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Tweet

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust

 

 

Last modified: Jun 2008