Look to the future, not to the past!

| Print |

E-mail

Nuclear energy triumphed last night at a high level debate, held by Intelligence Squared and sponsored by the Evening Standard at the Royal Geographic Society in Kensington, on the motion "Nuclear energy must power our future". Martyn Lewis chaired a panel of prominent speakers; Lord Parkinson Former Secretary of State for Energy, Bishop Hugh Montefiore, Former Bishop of Birmingham and former Trustee of Friends of the Earth and Bruno Comby Founder and President of EFN (Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy) supported the motion, while Zac Goldsmith Editor of The Ecologist Magazine, Mycle Schneider advisor to international government institutions and NGOs on energy and nuclear policy and Tony Juniper Executive Director, Friends of the Earth were opposed. Bruno Comby opened the debate with a poignant statement on the threat of climate change to the earth saying, "We have ignited a climactic time bomb and we can only hope that it is not too late". He believes that wind power, solar power, energy efficiency and nuclear energy all need to be exploited to the best degree to tackle impending global warming. He feels that nuclear can provide large amounts of energy in a compact form - the ratio of the amount of energy produced from equal quantities of uranium and oil is a million to one. On the issue of waste, he indicated that nuclear produces a relatively small amount compared to fossil fuels. On this issue it was also pointed out later that the new reactor technologies only produce 10% of the waste produced by the older technologies, and that the nuclear industry is the only industry that takes full responsibility of its waste and accounts for decommissioning and waste management in its financial budgeting. Comby closed with "I consider as an environmentalist that, yes, nuclear energy must power our future." Mycle Schneider then took the podium showing a set of slides representing the decline of operation and production of nuclear plants in the UK and globally over the past decade. He showed that ¾ of nuclear power is produced by 6 countries. Half the nuclear electricity produced in the EU is produced in France, where about 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power. Schneider argued that reactor lifetimes have averaged 20.7 years, not the 30-40 years they claim to be capable of operating for. He also pointed out that only one new reactor is currently being built in Finland, known as a 'European Pressurised Water Reactor' (EPR), but was disturbed that some of the parts of the reactor were being built in Japan. Schneider's final argument claimed that nuclear energy cannot assist in the struggle against climate change due to long lead times. This was an issue repeated on several occasions during the evening by the opposition to the motion, but there appeared to be ambiguity over what the lead times actually are. Bishop Hugh Montefiore began a robust speech focussing on the fears of global warming, quoting the March edition of the New Scientist, which stated, "We are on the edge of an abyss". He feels we have reached a point of no return - we must reduce carbon emissions by 60-80% by 2050. A quarter of CO2 emissions are produced by domestic use and Montefiore feels that energy efficiency and renewables do not provide enough power to close the energy gap being created by the reduction of nuclear power and the attempt to cut carbon emissions. Montefiore said, "I smell a little hypocrisy", indicating that France produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy, and the UK buys some it from them. "For God's sake, vote for posterity!" he proclaimed. Zac Goldsmith attempted to alarm his audience with images of Sizewell B being vulnerable to an 'explosion'. He felt that the insurance industry would not cover the nuclear industry without a guarantee from the state, from the taxpayer, that a debt would be covered. Goldsmith calculated the amount of waste produced by France from nuclear to be 230millionn litres, and declared that children living in the Sellafield area are 11 times more likely to suffer from leukaemia as a result of being near a nuclear site. He felt that the market has crippled the industry because it is by far the most expensive source of energy, and felt that the only way the UK should adopt a policy of more nuclear power is if there are no alternatives - then we would have to take the risks. But he felt that there were alternatives in renewables and energy efficiency. Cecil Parkinson felt it was necessary to point out that if Schneider is advising the French Government, then they must not be listening! He also pointed out that the German Government, which Schneider is also advising, are now reviewing their policy of no more nuclear power, so they must also not be listening to him. He stated that the decline in nuclear that Schneider had spoken of were a result of misleading environmental campaigns and scare stories supported by ill-founded facts. He feels that security of supply depends on diversity of supply, and not on dependency on imported gas from Algeria, Russia and the Middle East, which would provide no guarantees either on supply, or on price. He declared, "At the end of the day, we need baseload suppliers", and that the only dependable baseload energy source is nuclear. Tony Juniper presented the difference between energy policy and climate change policy, saying that only ¼ of carbon emissions would be affected by going with nuclear. He felt the real CO2 problem lay in the transport sector. Juniper mentioned the economics of nuclear power and his concerns about weapons proliferation. He supports energy from the clean production of fossil fuels and large scale renewables. He did not have faith in the ability of nuclear to reduce any more than 8% of emissions in the required timeframe. "As far as I can see, the lights haven't yet gone out", he stated, pointing out reductions of carbon emissions in certain boroughs of the country through the use of solar power and combined heat and power. He feels that the United States use more nuclear power than any other country and yet produce more CO2 than any other country. The speeches were concluded with a calculation of the votes taken before the debate began. Of 600 votes taken on the motion, 258 delegates voted for the motion "Nuclear energy must power our future", 155 voted against the motion and 186 voted 'don't know'. The question and answer session then commenced with some interesting comments from members of the audience refuting many of the claims made by the opposing side, on issues such as cancer clusters, on the asymmetry of the statements in terms of the lack of need for environmentalists to provide evidence and facts to support their statements, as they, unlike the nuclear industry are not under constant scrutiny for everything they do. They were seen to be irresponsibly scaremongering. There had been demands from the opposition to the motion to 'look to the future, not to the past' in terms of supporting 'new renewable technologies' and energy efficiency, and it was pointed out that the wind sector is over 150 years old, while the nuclear industry is only 50 years old, and yet, the younger nuclear industry provides vast quantities of energy compared to renewables which are still being developed only to produced a fraction of the energy. At the end of the event votes were taken again and the results were as follows: 289 For the motion 'Nuclear energy must power our future' 224 Against. The event proved to be a highly intelligent debate with a varied educated audience of all ages, from all sectors.

 

< Prev		Next >