A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
Nuclear power produces 16 % of the world’s electricity and drives several hundred nuclear submarines.
Many of the power stations are nearing the end of their lives. Nuclear power is an option with too many
unknowns, health risks and security problems. There is still no solution to the problem of how to dispose of
highly reactive waste that will remain for a thousand years and more, a toxic legacy for future generations.
Reports suggest that European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) may produce many times more radiation than
previous ones. Also, compared with renewable solutions, nuclear power will contribute too little, will be
available too late and is too costly. What is more, how can we, with credibility or integrity, oppose other
countries such as Iran developing their own nuclear capability if we persist in similar action?
Nuclear power generation poses unacceptable and unresolved risks, as was seen in the Chernobyl disaster
in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and
without proper regard for safety. The risks which could be devastating are uninsurable. The 2005 Chernobyl
Forum report said that some seven million people were receiving or eligible for benefits as "Chernobyl
victims", which means that resources are not targeting the needy few percent of them. Remedying this
presents daunting political problems however. Nearly 370 farms in Britain are still restricted in the way they
can use land and rear sheep because of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident after 23 years!
Denmark legislated against building further nuclear power stations after Chernobyl.
Imagine the potential for disasters comparable to Chernobyl or terrorist outrages far greater than 9/11, if
there are thousands of nuclear power stations all over the world, particularly in the poorest countries, where
both safety and security standards may not be up to those of the most advanced countries. Imagine the
health risks too.
Government argued that coal and nuclear power are needed to balance the fluctuations of wind, wave and
tide. However nuclear power makes a poor match with renewable sources. Once a nuclear power station is
up and running the best way to run it is to keep it producing at a constant rate until it develops faults and has
to be shut down.
A dangerous culture of secrecy There are reports of a secrecy culture has hindered safe operation, for
example at Sellafield and Drigg where both the new owners are struggling to discover, respectively, what has
been placed in storage ponds and what is in a waste dump .
Furthermore, it is increasingly obvious that nuclear power is an expensive option. Estimated costs of
decommissioning old power stations are enormous, with estimates constantly increasing. According to the
National Audit Office, The cost of decommissioning Britain's 19 ageing nuclear plants has jumped from £61bn
to £73bn in two years and could land the taxpayer with even higher bills in the future. These massive sums
could be put into developing green alternatives. Estimates of construction cost are constantly rising too.
Below is my summary of these arguments.
The Case against Nuclear Power
Safety – made worse by a culture of secrecy - is still a big unresolved issue as frequent new reports of
lapses confirm.
51