Nuclear Energy vs. Conservation of Energy
Conservation of Energy betters producing more every time, and there are many ways in which conservation measures be integrated at little or no inconvenience at all.
Here is some information on Nuclear as a means of energy production:
- First of all, nuclear power was not introduced to produce energy as such, it was introduced in the 50s as a front for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons and offset the cost. It's proven time and time again to be the most expensive form of energy production.
- Doubts as to whether carbon emissions are the cause of global warming aside - the anti-greenhouse argument for nuclear energy is very weak. Students have found that every pound spent on energy efficiency saves seven times as much carbon as every pound spent on nuclear power.
- Fossil fuel energy is needed to mine the uranium and transport it, produce the cement and transport it, build the reactor, deal with the waste and many other things. The processes of purifying what comes out the ground (which is becoming increasingly inpure) requires processes which create a lot of carbon emissions. This totals around 250,000 tonnes carbon dioxide per reactor per year, according to Nigel Mortimer, an energy analyst.
- Mining for the fuel is an environmental disaster which has destroyed the lands of native peoples like American Indians and Aboriginies. As supplies become rarer and rarer more sites need to be located for aquiring it at the expense of natural landscapes and indigenous peoples.
- Plutonium 239, just one of the bi-products of nuclear energy, has a half-life of 24,400 years - 4 times longer than recorded history! It could takes over 500,000 years for even a small quantity of it to become harmless. The lethal dosage is a thousandth of a gram.
I hope this sways you towards the belief that nuclear is not the answer. Consuming less is the answer, because (contrary to popular belief) it doesn't need to be at the expense or inconvenience of anyone, here are some examples:
- Did you know that many appliances such as TVs, fridges and toasters could be 75-90% more efficient but there is no legislation, tariff or subsidy to encourage this?
Electrical appliances should be made as efficient as possible or face financial penalties.
- In 1993 the book Energy Without End by Michael Flood featured a house built in British Columbia, which has a climate similar to South England, that received an Annual Electric Heating Bill (albeit in 1986) of £12. It was four times the size of an average British house.
What is the best way to eliminate hypothermia which kills many older people in their own homes evey winter? To produce more energy at great cost and hope they can afford it or to insulate their houses so that they retain heat at less expense? The government should spend money on grants for insulation instead of nuclear power.
- More heat is thrown away from our powerstations every year than is generated by the entire production of North Sea gas every year. Most of the potential heat is poured into the sky as flue gases and steam. Instead this "waste steam" could be piped in order to heat homes an workplaces! Thats energy efficient in two ways, also saving on seperate energy being used in heating.
- Waste oil from nearly 3 million car oil changes in Britain is not collected and a litre of oil can pollute a million litres of fresh drinking water. If this oil was collected properly it could meet the annual energy needs of 1.5 million people according to the Scottish Oil Care Campaign.
- Energy efficiency also creates more jobs. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimate that 81,000 jobs could be created in Scotland alone by "a comprehensive programme of energy efficiency and training."