The argument against new nulear.

In an article on the Share Centre web-site, they mentioned Jonathon Porritt’s article in the Guardian, which they add a further argument against new nuclear:

Admittedly he is a tad biased, but Jonathon Porritt has written a good piece arguing against a new programme of building nuclear power stations. See: How the UK is handing control of its energy future to France One of the bits of information presented in the piece you may want to make note of is that the four previous nuclear power stations built by the company that will probably be responsible for the UK stations took an average of 17.5 years to construct. There is an important point here that Mr Porritt did not actually mention in his article, which is surprising because it supports his case. The energy industry is currently subject to considerable innovation. Technology used for renewables is becoming more efficient every year. In 17.5 years’ time, wind, solar, tide and hydro-electric power will be much more efficient than it is today, perhaps more efficient than traditional fossil fuels. (Although, probably never enough to fulfil all of the UK’s needs). And yet in making the case for building a nuclear power station that will take one and half decades to build, the nuclear power supporters look at the current cost of renewables.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s