NUCLEAR POWER: A dangerous throwback,
unfit for 21st century
needs?
Pete Wilkinson
Against
today’s backdrop of technological innovation in electricity generation through
utilising ambient energy sources, nuclear power is starkly exposed as an
antiquated, complex and dangerous throwback from the days of nuclear weapons
and the cold war. It requires uranium as fuel which, in the reactors operating
in the UK today, is from Russia or Russia-influenced countries. It is expensive
and slow to deploy, rendering its putative ‘low carbon’ benefits ineffective in
the fight against climate change. Its technology is a fine balance between
extreme temperatures, lethal radioactivity and shrinking water reserves.
Unmitigated
direct cooling from the sea or from rivers has a devastating effect on marine
life: Hinkley Point C, should it ever be
completed, is expected to kill 11 billion fish over its projected lifetime of
60 years. French engineers have labelled the EPR ‘too complicated to build’. It
generates radioactive waste which requires indefinite, constantly monitored
storage for thousands of years, representing an intergenerational burden of
unacceptable proportions. Nuclear reactors emit millions of microscopic,
radioactive particles of uranium, the health effects of which are bitterly
contested. Nuclear reactors suffer from a syndrome known as ‘low frequency,
high consequence accidents’: see
Windscale 1957, Three Mile Island 1979, Chernobyl 1986 and Fukushima 2011. The
search for a geological disposal facility has relied on imposition on
unsuspecting and hostile communities.
The switch to volunteerism since the recommendation from the Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management in 2007 has not produced a ‘willing community’
after fifteen years of effort.
Uranium
is a finite resource. After mining, it
has to be milled, enriched to increase its fissionability, fashioned into
pellets, configured into assemblies, transported at every step before being
loaded into a reactor core in the heart of a complex building which itself has
generated an unhealthy carbon footprint. This ‘front end’ of the fuel cycle is
carbon heavy and capital intensive as is the ‘back end’ which begins with the
removal of a third of the exhausted or ‘spent’ reactor fuel after a year or 18
months in the reactor core to make way for fresh fuel to be loaded at a
permanent, geological disposal facility (GDF) for super-hot and highly radioactive spent
nuclear fuel .
The
cost of decommissioning the UK’s nuclear reactors, the ‘interim’ storing of
spent fuel pending the locating of a site for a GDF, and the entombing of the
detritus has been estimated at £260bn by an independent expert, the industry
itself admits to £131bn.
The
anti-nuclear argument is countered by the claim that the lights will go out
without ‘always on’ nuclear. But nuclear plants are not always on (maintenance
outages, refuelling and precautionary shut-downs occur) and are not good at
following the fluctuating demand, as they require lead times to ‘fire up’. load factors – the ratio of how much nuclear
electricity was produced as a share of the total generating capacity - also
give an indication of how important nuclear is power to powering the grid. In 2016, the nuclear average load factor was
80% which fell to below 60% in 2021.
And, ‘baseload’ is a concept which has been dismissed by the CEO of the
National Grid as irrelevant in national
electricity provision.
The
advantage of renewable technologies, particularly wind, solar and tidal power,
is that the source of the energy arrives at the blade of the wind turbine, the
face of the photo-voltaic cell or to the tidal barrier totally free of charge,
avoiding the entire ‘front end’ cost typical of nuclear power and hydrocarbons.
However, renewables are having a dramatic impact on the demand for rare earth
metals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and manganese, the appropriate
management of these presents a dilemma to the energy sector.
Successive
governments, when confronted by dwindling installed electricity capacity which
the UK faces as ageing nuclear plants face closure, seem to think only in terms
of increasing supply rather than reducing demand. There is considerable scope for the latter
but only in recent months has this government presented electricity reduction
measures to consumers. Concerted, urgent
national action is long overdue. To
avoid a ‘lights out’ crisis in the we need to embark on a community-driven
campaign to reduce electricity demand.
Evidence suggests that there is a 30% opportunity to be realised. However, this government has ignored the
mandatory fitting of solar panels on all roof-top spaces, retrofitting thermal
efficiency measures, the wholesale switch to LED lighting and treating ‘energy
crisis’ with the urgency it requires, to keep the lights on and meet our
climate change challenge by 2050. Nuclear
power won’t do it because by the time the front-line test-case of Sizewell C
produces one kilowatt of nuclear power, around 2035, the energy sector is
required to have reached its own net-zero carbon target, rendering the low
carbon claim for new nuclear ineffective in making more than a passing
contribution.
Pete
Wilkinson
Committee on
Radioactive Waste Management member 2003 – 2007
Former advisor to the
Office of Nuclear Regulation
Deputy Chairperson,
Sizewell site stakeholder group
Deputy Chairperson,
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)
Co-founder Friends of
the Earth
Co-founder Greenpeace
UK
BACK TO BASICS – BACK TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS by Tina
Rothery
We’re
in an ecological crisis, ,yet politics continues to fudge the action required
to save ourselves and all else that depends on nature and the environment Does
our Party have the right focus for this crisis?
Each
member has their own particular take on what the purpose of the Green Party of
England & Wales is ‘a political party seeking electoral power’ but what do
we want that power for? GPEW makes clear in the Philosophical Basis that it’s not about
being IN power, it’s decidedly more moral than that:
PB503 We will even work with
those who disagree with us where sufficient common ground can be found to do
so. However, we do not seek power at any price, and will withdraw our support
if we are asked to make irreversible or fundamental compromises
When I first read the Philosophical Basis, I decided to join the Party. which I
saw as the ‘political wing’ of a global movement of campaigners; facing each
crisis with science-based facts and stubborn determination to protect our
life-support-system.
I’ll
admit a UK-politics naivety but, realising how unjust life was and how
dangerous many political decisions were, I came to GPEW to see if anything
could be done to try to stop the nonsense masquerading as democracy.
Under
First Past the Post GPEW stands little
chance in a 2-horse race. I was not deterred. GPEW is clearly the Party
needed during an ecological crisis – that’s the very reason it was formed!
I
noticed that GPEW was heard by creators of other parties’ Manifestos– in fact
the Labour Manifesto of 2019 was so similar to GPEW’s Manifesto that FoE said: “The
Labour party has come out top in Friends of the Earth’s environmental
assessment of the main UK-wide party manifestos, with the Green Party and the
Liberal Democrats also putting forward a wide-range of significant policies to
respond to the climate and ecological crisis.”
Would
Labour have done as much, without being reminded by Green Councillors, Peers
and our MP – that the issues can’t be ignored? It may be near-impossible to
gain enough MPs to impact Parliament but at least we can champion truth and
force others to include our policies. We only fail at getting the credit.
Everyone
of every Party or none, needs unpolluted air, clean water, a survivable climate
and the biodiversity of nature. This is the urgent mission that sets us apart
from other parties
PB201. Our survival depends
upon the continued survival of all the ecosystems which evolved before us. The
Green Party therefore sees humanity as necessarily a dependent part of the
natural environment. When human activity threatens the environment around us,
that activity threatens our future survival. Political objectives should accept
our dependence, not seek to transgress it. We do not believe that any other
species is expendable.
When
I started opposing fracking, stopping it was a distant aim. My every decision was based on getting closer. A lot of GPEW members feel that the
‘elections-first’ approach damps down other campaigns. Although many GPEW members are involved in XR, Friends of
the Earth, Greenpeace, challenging HS2, fighting for clean air, opposing
sewage-dumping, defending trees etc., we don’t see these as particularly GPEW
campaigns. . Our Green Politics is about
more than our Party or just politics:
PB501 We do not believe that
there is only one way to change society, or that we have all the answers. We
seek to be part of a wider green movement that works for these principles
through a variety of means. We generally support those who use reasonable and
non-violent forms of direct action to further just aims.
Sustaining
our moral core and our aims is tough in a politics, which involves FPTP voting,
dubious funding and biased media,. I recall how refreshing it was to see
Caroline Lucas tour of ‘leave’ areas to
understand what the issues were; i she
genuinely cared. Not that the media paid much heed of course.
Clearly
we need political change and GPEW has the focus on the environment that’s
needed , other Parties merely pay lip-service for votes. We need more than
adding to our impressive list of
Councillors or another MP.
We
need to continue to act beyond politics. Rapid change is going to happen
‘naturally’ as nature continues to be depleted, agriculture pollutes soil and
waters and fossil fuel projects do more
harm. Every decision we make must first consider “where’s the environment/climate/nature/ecology
in this?”
We
all want GPEW to ‘win’ and to be much more than a pressure group –but at least,
we are an effective pressure group. In 2020 Caroline Lucas introduced the
Climate & Ecology Bill that has received cross-party support and is making
its way through Parliament. Many GPEW Councillors have succeeded in putting
motions to Councils. IF the CE Bill was to pass – it would mean that plans to
frack, to build new coal mines, to
pollute and allowing nature to waste away would be illegal..
Furthermore,
the CE Bill would remove the need for spending so much time protesting to save
the environment – the law instead would simply yet firmly, make that sort of
thing illegal. If we focused valuable
energy and campaigning into getting Caroline’s Bill into Law, we will achieve what our Philosophical Basis expects
of us as a Party and maybe we’d have the
credibility to get into power despite FPtP.
Although
it feels like the cost-of-living crisis, social injustice, class wars, privatisation
of vital public services and corrupted politics should be a priority as they
ensure that the vast majority suffer whilst the very few succeed, in the end
everything depends on the environment. All our fights for a fairer, greener
society will count for nothing if we stay on a planet-wrecking trajectory there
will be no justice.
Another Europe Is
Possible – observations from the members’ meeting – December 2022
Erwin Schaefer, West
Central London GP
AEIP was formed in the
aftermath of the brexit referendum by several progressive forces with support
by high-profile Green Party members. It has over the years successfully
campaigned for migrants’ rights, against Islamophobia, has supported Freedom of
Movement with the EU, the struggle against austerity and, in the last year, has
been on the side of the progressive resistance against aggression in Ukraine.
At its core it is a
pro-European group aligned with a progressive view of a cooperative Europe. As
an elected member of the National Committee, I recommend checking them out
online and joining.
We need to get away from
the gaslighting by the Tory government and their false narrative of ‘illegals’,
as such language encourages far-right acts of violence. But we do need to have
the difficult conversations in the deprived areas and to channel the anger,
showing genuine working-class solidarity with the lived experience of people to
find the common struggle against austerity and conflict – and to show we have
more in common with immigrants than divides us. There are human faces and
stories attached to people who should better be known as ‘undocumented
workers’. Leaving conflict areas to simply stay alive and not be drawn into a
war, or to escape from the effect of climate change is a fundamental human
right and Britain, as a major arms exporter as well as a major contributor to
carbon emissions, needs to look at what is being done.
Cost of Living / Energy / Climate crisis is it also a crisis in the credibility of our main
stream media? Why are we accepting this particular crisis as a matter of fact
and not challenge it as the outcome of a failure of global capitalism? Climate
justice and workers justice are part of the same struggle. Green New Deal and
Green Jobs proposals could be seen as a reaction to the 2008 financial crisis
but governments failed to take the required decisive action. international solidarity with workers in even
more repressive countries is necessary – what impact do the recently introduced
West African oil and gas imports due to Russian restrictions have on the local
communities? These cannot be positive developments, within the same economic model that caused
the earlier crises in the first place.
There hasn’t been a
generalised social movement in this country since the early 2010s. The various
groups that do exist are diverse but with a broad agreement it should be
possible to find some overall alignment.
The main event, for me,
was a zoom call on Russian anti-war activities,
with an activist, in Russia, online, and a Ukrainian activist in the room.
The Western Left failed
after Chechnya and after 2014 to effectively oppose Putin; there was also
possible failure by Russian opposition. Insufficient thought was given to fair
trade and social justice between all countries after the collapse of the USSR..
The roots of the conflict lie partially in post-war and post-cold war events
and international mechanisms should still be used to find solutions. But it is
also a crisis of capitalist societys being dependent on Russian resources.
Ideally, cooperative trust should exist in the face of international issues
such as Syria and Iran.
The economic sanctions are
not yet felt enough in Russia, not to change the attitude of the population
about the conflict.
Russian tactics used in
Ukraine are similar to previous events in Syria, Yugoslavia and Chechnya, with
widespread population suffering. Human rights violations are not new and
Russian society has huge steps to take towards full human rights.
There is opposition to the
state, but Russia has an aging population, with large rural poor areas where
Soviet rhetoric still dictates that ‘the state knows best’.
There is also significant
influence by the orthodox church that largely follows the Kremlin rhetoric.
Some affected people have
left the country but for anyone inside Russia, while they can join increasing
numbers of protesters, they know the consequences.
Russia has a historical
mindset of ‘life is cheap’ and the huge loss of life, not least due to ill
equipped military, combined with a primarily masculine society means that
feminist, non-violent changes will not be happening in the country while
violence is so inherent. But significantly, women are daring to speak out
against historical and generic violence normalised in society.
Will Ukraine end up as a
new colonial territory between Russia and the West?
Q: “What can the West do?”
– Russia needs to find its own voice; right now it needs support through war
protests not political protests; an international civic movement taking steps
towards supporting transformation of Russian society; also including criticism
about environmental war effects.
Can sanctions stop war?
There are too many aspects preventing a clear answer.
Shire
Elections at the Dawning of a Greater Gerontocracy
RURAL NEWS by Alan
Wheatley
2023
is a Shire Elections year and I suspect that the 2019 ousting of Tory
domination on Herefordshire Council by a coalition of Independents,’ and Green
Party, united by a manifesto for greater public transport and cycling provision
vs Tory plans for more roads to ‘ease congestion’.
Public
transport provision is costly for those whose comparative youth excludes them
from Senior Bus Pass and other age benefits, and Herefordshire is a
geographically large county. Those below state pension age are also excluded
from full Council Tax Reduction Support,. A Senior Bus Pass (age 60+) costs £10
for 4-years . Yet current Monday-to-Saturday bus provision can help lighten the
financial load at a time of burgeoning inflation in what New Internationalist
magazine calls ‘the cost of greed crisis’(1).
‘Information’ toward ‘informed choices’ comes from many sources including
advice from Public Health England and our own observations. As an example, I
now realise that the ‘walking with heavy shopping helps build muscle mass and
bone density’ advice issued on the Diabetes Protection Programme (DPP) I
attended May 2018 to March 2019 needs to be age-nuanced with, “Don’t let your
mind make appointments for you that your body can no longer keep.” By the end
of DPP I had lost 10% of my body weight, but by overdoing things, six months
after DPP, I had a hernia before my 66th birthday.
So, for large Hereford Co-op shopping loads, I now use large wheelie case
(dragged behind me, not slouched into) rather than shopping bags, and don't
shop when there is no bus service. (No longer, at age 69, will I carry heavy
shopping bags between bus stops.)
Yes, 2023 is a Shire County Elections year as veiled ‘vote Conservative’
letters to Hereford Times point out. Councils have 4-year terms of office, UK
Central Governments 5 year terms; and both the Elections Bill that comes into
force in May 2023 (2). Chancellor of
the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s proposes a hike in the State Pension Eligibility
because‘we can no longer afford’ so many state pensioners. Years earlier, as
Health Secretary, on the cue of a working tax credit cut for for low paid
families, he said that Britons should work much harder “like the Chinese
Welcome to the ‘corporate demolition of the
welfare state’.(4) “Work to death or get private ‘income protection insurance’”
trumps welfare state “from cradle to grave” ethos.
What services would a Herefordshire elected
Conservative Council from 2023 gladly axe? I shudder to think, while I wonder
what little Herefordshire Green Party will do for ‘levelling up’. “To please
some of the voters, some of the time”?
Meanwhile,
public transport provision: use it and explore it, if you can afford to, or
lose it.
(1) https://newint.org/node/29987
See
also
https://newint.org/features/2022/12/05/wealth-safari-cargill-family-bernard-looney-gautam-adani-bernard-arnault
(2)
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/we-must-oppose-this-bad-elections-bill
(3) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-wants-poor-brits-6580580
(4)
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/disabled-researchers-book-exposes-corporate-demolition-of-welfare-state/
Safe-guarding greener
jobs in an age of transition – “Bold Solutions: The economic, climate and
energy crises and how to fix them”
Erwin Schaefer, as London Green Party Trade Union Liaison Officer (job-share)
As this recent TUC seminar
attests, unions are responding to the challenges of decarbonising industrial
jobs. Starting with ‘communicating a socially
just ambitious vision’, the need to radically tune into people’s
experiences and aspirations and to be willing to listen to their fears about
their livelihoods is really the only way to engage workers. Involve people
affected by the transition process decisions. Solidarity instead of instances
of perceived hypocrisy. The unifying villain can be found in the form of a
capitalist system reliant on fossil fuels and common ground can be found
mutually exploring inspirational green jobs that are not in conflict with
tangible, realistic and genuine changes.
Moving on to ‘future-proofing high carbon jobs’, the same
theme of solidarity emerged. Workers threatened by redundancy because their
deprived areas do not attract alternative work opportunities, or due to old
age, are in a particularly precarious situation and may be open to far-right
propaganda. A labour activist from the ‘Global South’ made the valid point that
solidarity needs to include all potential victims of a globalised capitalist
system; there are many workers in countries seen as providers of cheap labour,
with little protection, few rights and being vulnerable to corporate and
political abuse.
The next debate on ‘climate energy and inequality: interlinked solutions
focused on London as an urban example for existing Green New Deal examples –
dangerous and deadly air pollution as one of the reasons for a necessary
transition and ongoing work by City Hall to establish retrofitting solutions to
help keep houses warm and reduce residential fossil fuel consumption. The
massive current skills shortage in the UK was repeatedly mentioned throughout
the day and I noted, with interest, how union reps unfavourably compared the
training and apprenticeship options in this country with the ones actively being
pursued in the EU. Seen from a competitive point it is a concern, seen from an
empathetic secure employment scenario, it seems clear that the voices condemning
the government’s approach to a meaningful transition with full workers’ rights,
job security and satisfying work are only going to get louder.
‘Green jobs must be quality jobs’ should be an obvious statement and the next panel debate led on the
crucial need for skills training, yet again, and demands for quality green jobs
that provide well-paid unionised work. The North Sea gas conversion in the 1960/70s
was mentioned which provided much needed skilled work at the time; but there is
no leadership from government for any recognition that workers in deprived
areas, or in aging industries, need to be listened to. Once again, the UK
situation compared poorly to more sustained efforts being made in Europe. Green
jobs can be made attractive and well-paid but will the current economic system
– aka globalised capitalism – enable or prevent investments? Do we really have
to let the private sector finance transition technologies, training and
apprenticeships and still expect an outcome that favours workers’ rights,
empathetic support of workers wishing, or needing, to leave their jobs,
training and education that is fit for the future and satisfying well-paid
jobs?
Talking about the public
sector, the final panel debate explored ‘public
ownership of energy – for a safe climate’ with the assertion that energy
supply must be run for the people by the people and not for private profit, as
the current non-public energy ownership has tangible, visible, negative effects
on our energy cost structure. Another mention of Europe, where public energy
supply ownership is much more prevalent, followed by a shocking comparison of
the costs of the bail-out payment for energy cost assistance. If one contrasts
these costs to-date of around £2.7 billion with estimated costs of
nationalising the ‘Big 5 (or 6)’ (British Gas, EDF, e.on, npower, Scottish
Power, SSE) which would run to approximately £3 billion, the chance to
nationalise our power supply has been thrown away in favour of maximising
private profiteering.
Private ownership has no
incentive for training investment. The public will, however, have to deal with
– and pay for – net zero action anyway, irrespective of public or private
ownership.
A brief analysis of the event
from an eco-socialist perspective: Nobody is disputing the urgent need for a
transition towards a zero-carbon world anymore, but the debate needs to framed
around solidarity for affected workers, the need to listen to their expertise
and concerns. This must also include workers in ‘outsourced’ countries who
desperately need our solidarity in their struggle against globalised
capitalism. It is a government’s responsibility to ensure workers are supported
at all stages in their lives – from young people needing comprehensive,
meaningful and attractive apprenticeships to workers needing new skills
training for satisfying future-proof jobs to people choosing other options –
and this government is, unsurprisingly, failing in its duty.
I want to finish with the
impression that unions appear to be coming round to the realisation that having
put some trust in the Tories’ promises surrounding the exit from the EU, they
have become disillusioned by the realities.
Solidarity – training for
green jobs – international outlook – public ownership.
25/2/2022
Old man lies in bed,
sleepless, listening to the radio voices,
That, late at night,
can lull him;
Talking of cricket
matches, or bringing
Stories, music and recipes
from far-off places.
But the radio voices
aren’t comforting tonight,
The old man turns
over and tries to sleep
Because nightmares
might be better
Than listening again
To voices of
desperation and defiance in the face of fear.
He’s heard them
before
Calling from the
Czech lands as the tanks rolled in.
Young man went out to
shout,
In the street outside
the Russian embassy.
He can’t even do that
now.
So, he just has to
listen
To the ingredients
describing the recipe
For Chicken Kiev.
|
|
GREEN LEFT ONLINE
Green left facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/GreenLeft/
Green left website
https://wordpress.greenparty.org.uk/greenleft/
Green left blog
http://greenleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/
Green Left twitter @GreenLeftUK
|
JOIN GREEN LEFT
Green Left subscriptions are £7 per year,
FREE for unwaged/low waged. pay
by standing order
Please
contact: Green Left
Co .jmbaileyx@yahoo.com
|
.jpg)
