nuclear-news

Nuclear is the real threat to the fuel-poor, not wind energy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Nuclear is the real threat to the fuel-poor, not wind energy
The Guardian September 10 2008 Recent allegations that a dash for wind would cause a big increase in fuel poverty crumble when you do the numbers, says Oliver Tickell. Nuclear is the real worry “…………………………………The Investigation’s figure that wind power will add £400 to the average’s family’s annual electricity bill is plain wrong. In fact, with the savings on coal, we can probably achieve 35% wind penetration in our electricity supply by 2020 for under £50 per household per year, and in the high fuel cost scenario, it would add nothing at all. It will also yield security benefits by making the UK less dependent on politically sensitive Russian gas imports. And that’s before even starting on the environmental cost of carbon dioxide emissions………………………….Perhaps his real problem with bringing 35% wind into our electricity supply is that it leaves little space for new nuclear power – that much wind would more than close the anticipated energy gap caused by the impending closure of our 23 nuclear stations over coming decades: their total contribution is just 80bn units a year, compared to the 133bn units we would be getting from wind.

But for anyone worried about cost to both electricity consumers and taxpayers, nuclear power is the truly scary option. The cost of decommissioning our existing nuclear power stations has already escalated to £83bn and seems certain to keep on climbing towards £100bn – roughly the cost of our whole wind power programme. If King’s concern really is for the Britain’s fuel-poor households, he must abandon his nuclear dream, and look instead to a clean, green future for the UK’s electricity.

Nuclear is the real threat to the fuel-poor, not wind energy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Tags: nuclear antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

September 10, 2008 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics