Say no to nuclear power

What we think

Say no to nuclear power

TONY BLAIR pre-empted his own government’s energy review, and
announced to his big- business friends in the CBI that he intends to
replace Britain’s nuclear power stations with new ones.

His declaration forms part of a reversed international trend. With
people’s consciousness fading on the worst nuclear accidents, like that
of Three Mile Island in 1979 in the US and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986,
16 governments have presently got proposals to build 107 new civil
reactors. They include the US, which has not built a new nuclear plant
for over 30 years.

Their primary motive is to help satisfy their own industrial and
service energy needs, in a world where fossil fuels are a finite
resource with fluctuating prices and huge supply instability due to
world economic and political turmoil.

The UK became a net energy importer two years ago, so UK big business
now fears its vulnerability to the chaotic world energy market. This is
especially so following Russia’s gas dispute with the Ukraine which
temporarily disrupted supply to the rest of Europe.

As well as the passage of time since Chernobyl, pro-nuclear
government propaganda is helped considerably by people’s concern over
global warming, as nuclear energy produces far fewer greenhouse gas
emissions than do fossil fuels.

The need to reduce the contribution to global warming played by
fossil fuels is indisputable. Research is showing that it is also
extremely urgent. For instance, a recent study reported that a record
area of the Arctic Ocean failed to freeze during the winter just passed.

However, the government-initiated Sustainable Development Commission,
that opposes new nuclear stations, has calculated that even if existing
nuclear capacity is replaced and doubled, then the resulting reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions would only be 8%. This is very low,
considering that climate change scientists estimate a reduction of 80%
is necessary!

But in any case, there is no level of emissions reduction that would
justify new nuclear stations, because nuclear power – in its present
form of nuclear fission – is a massive environmental hazard. The
statistical chance of accidents may be small, but when they do occur,
minor incidents can be very serious and major ones devastating to humans
and the environment. The radiation from Chernobyl spread thousands of
miles and has an effect spanning generations. As nuclear energy has been
privatised in Britain, this increases the chances of accidents, as
nuclear bosses will be tempted to cut corners to maximise their profits.

Dangerous waste

Then there is the huge problem of dangerous nuclear waste. This is
transported and stored above ground at 34 locations in Britain at
present and there is no known way of making it safe for the thousands of
years it will remain highly reactive. There is also the possibility of
terrorists attacking a nuclear installation or obtaining and using
nuclear material. Nuclear substances have gone missing in many
countries.

What is necessary, is not continued use of nuclear power, but the
rapid development of safe, renewable energy sources, such as wind, waves
and the sun. While these are being developed, there is also great scope
for energy efficiency measures and new technologies such as carbon
capture and storage technologies, if resources are applied to them.

Renewable energy production was once largely dismissed by the top
capitalist scientists and politicians, but today is regarded as a
contributing energy source. Even Blair’s government intends to increase
power generation from renewable sources to 20% of total energy used.

It is also true that much of the capitalist media is unsure on the
nuclear option. Some commentators rightly point out that the true cost
of nuclear power is deliberately masked and that there is increasing
evidence that renewable sources are cheaper as well as much safer.

However, under capitalism, energy policy will never be developed to
meet the needs of the majority of people in society and a sustainable
environment, but will be primarily to satisfy the needs of big business
and private profit.

Margaret Thatcher ran down the coal industry to counter the miners’
power as a highly organised workforce, and today Blair makes decisions
to satisfy his friends in the nuclear industry and the relatively
short-term sights and interests of British capitalism as a whole.

Renewable energy

Socialists have to demand the closing down of nuclear plants and a
massive programme of investment into renewable energy resources and the
safest ways of disposing of nuclear plant and waste.

We demand that no workers in the nuclear industry are made redundant
or given new jobs on worse pay and conditions. There will be plenty of
work needed on the decommissioning of plants and on alternative energy
generation.

It is also essential that all the energy industries are taken into
public ownership, so that an integrated energy programme can be created
to provide cheap and safe energy for all. This needs to be part of a
democratic and socialist plan of production that can satisfy the needs
of everyone today, as well as safeguarding the planet for future
generations.