Blair goes nuclear

Environment

Blair goes nuclear

RECENTLY, PRIME minister Tony Blair told CBI dinner guests that he
backed building a new generation of nuclear power stations, saying
nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". In doing so,
Blair pre-empted the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) report on UK
energy requirements, expected in July.

But Blair’s headlong rush for nuclear should come as no surprise. Even
though Labour’s 2005 election manifesto gave no commitment for expanding
nuclear energy, big business nuclear lobbyists were knocking at the door
of Number 10.

Figures released by the Electoral Commission has shown that as soon as
the DTI review was announced "money from nuclear interests flooded in"
(The Independent, 27 May 2006) to Labour’s coffers.

Among the donors was a lobbying firm for British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
who gave £19,500. The BNFL privately owned consortium operates eight of
the 16 nuclear power plants which are due to close by 2010. Other donors
include EDF Energy which operates 58 reactors in Europe, and US nuclear
company Fluor.

These companies are licking their lips at winning a juicy contract for
new nuclear stations. Ten new nuclear plants alone would be worth £20
billion in contracts.

Blair and his big business pals justify replacing Britain’s nuclear
energy plants on the grounds of meeting the government’s commitments for
curbing ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions and reducing dependency on imported
fossil fuels.

But nuclear power doesn’t really represent a ‘greener’ option. Even a
doubling of existing nuclear capacity would only reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 8%. However, a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
says carbon dioxide (CO2) levels must be reduced 60% by 2050. The
government’s own target of a 20% CO2 cut by 2010 was quietly dropped
after the CBI bosses argued that such measures would affect industry’s
"competitiveness," ie their profits!

Moreover, nuclear power is potentially dangerous. (It’s particularly
ironic that Blair has opted for nuclear power on the 20th anniversary of
the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.) And there is still no safe means of
disposing of toxic radioactive waste.

Hidden costs

Also, the cost of nuclear power vis-ˆ-vis renewable energy sources is
prohibitively expensive.

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) says existing estimates
underestimate real costs by a factor of three. NEF says these estimates
don’t allow for the cost of building novel technologies and expensive
delays in construction. For example Dungeness B power station, which took
23 years to complete instead of five, cost 400% above the predicted
estimates!

Moreover, big business wants the public to pick up the huge tab for
insurance and decommissioning. Decommissioning the Dounreay reactor alone
will cost £3 billion over 30 years.

Existing investment in renewables such as wind and wave power, solar
energy and geo-thermal energy is a tiny fraction of the amount invested
by governments and big business in nuclear and fossil fuels energy.

Likewise, in the USA, George Bush’s 2005 Energy Bill gave $14.5
billion for energy measures. But the bulk of this money went to provide
tax breaks and loans for new nuclear plants and to oil and gas companies,
with only 7% to renewables and energy conservation.

Capitalism is a profit-driven system which enriches a minority of
individuals at the expense of the majority. Under this system, energy
supply, industrial production and agribusiness is not sustainable. It is
a system that cannot meet human needs without wrecking the environment.

Only socialism, by ending the anarchy of the profit system, can
democratically plan economies to meet human needs on a sustainable basis.