Greenpeace could have something here, nuclear power stations built along the coast in East Anglia are at risk of being flooded if sea levels rise as predicted. These are the
findings of a study by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University and concludes that the cost of defending the sites from significant sea level rises and storm surges would make them “economically unsustainable”.
Although only four sites were studied for the report, all our nuclear power stations are built around the coast because of the need for an isolated position and a plentiful supply of cooling water. Ultimately, it means they could all be at risk of flooding.
And this is the second report this year to warn of a nuclear flood risk, with the Met Office predicting that North Sea surge levels at Sizewell could rise by 1.7 metres by the end of the century.
So where does this leave the government’s future plans for nuclear power? How seriously will it heed these warnings? Has it commissioned its own study to investigate this threat, especially as scientists have also warned of rising sea levels caused by global warming?
This government is fixated with nuclear power, and will do all it can to push through a programme of expansion, even when factors like the flooding risk are evidently pointing to this being folly.
The EU Energy policy agreed last week in Brussels is a case in point. Blair has come out saying that nuclear power is a renewable technology! German president Merkel said in her press release after the summit that:
“… two goals were at stake. The first concerned the share of renewable energy sources, meaning wind, water, sun and biomass. Merkel stated clearly that “nuclear power does not fall into this categoryâ€?.”
whereas Blair said:
“…. In respect of renewable energy in setting how each country contributes to that overall European target there will be the permission to look at the energy mix that countries have, including all sorts of technologies, including nuclear technology,…”
Miliband is yet to clarify to Friends of the Earth why Blair is contradicting the EU President on this crucial issue.
We need to have a clear path to low-carbon sources of energy. That means government stimulating investment in truly sustainable technologies like wind and solar – not the antiquated, dangerous and actually carbon-intensive technology which is nuclear.
The Earth receives 12,000 times more energy from the sun everyday than is used by civilization worldwide – the problem confronting mankind is not insufficient energy, but too much energy of the wrong kind, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The energy challenge is not a supply problem but a distribution problem.
A network of solar plants in Southern Europe and North Africa, and offshore wind in the North Sea can easily provide all of Europe’s electrical needs. I’m referring to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) – large power stations, not household-level PV panels.
This approach would mean – no uranium to mine and refine, no risk of hijacking by terrorists, no radioactive waste to deal with, no possibility of being shut down because of flooding or because the water used for cooling is too warm. And an inexhaustible supply of fuel. (what happens when high quality uranium ore runs out?)
Having said all that, the first thing we should all be doing is reducing energy demand – flying less, driving less and consuming less.
Interesting blog, Ellee. I am only familiar with Sizewell as it was only a few miles south when I lived in Norfolk. We used to love tramping around the sanctuary at Minsmere, and I always found ironic, if nothing else, to be in this wildlife haven and to look across at the huge cooling towers of the nuke plant. But, it is true that Sizewell is virtually on teh water’s edge.
Ian
Interesting post, Ellee. I’d never thought about all the nuc power plants being near the sea before, but of course, they are. Frightening!
Frankly I think the anti-Nuclear lobby is plain Luddite.
Atomic power is one of the greatest scientific ‘miracles’ of our time. It is the most efficient power source we know of- pending the successful discovery of cold fusion, which may yet be a pipedream.
It is ironic that the green lobby talk about solar energy, energy which comes from the sun, which is- oh-er- a great big nuclear reaction which has been going on for about five billion years.
The disasters always quoted happened in the infancy of the nuclear age, Windscale, Five Mile Island etc- Chernobyl was the result of still using outdated technology.
Modern nuclear power stations are to Windscale what the Toyota Celica is to the Austin 7.
Atomic powrer- and research into making it yet more efficient- and yet more green than this alrwady green source of energy alreasy is- is mankind’s only real progressive option.
Joe, I totally agree, and have said so before:
http://elleeseymour.com/2006/11/16/will-the-government-warm-up-to-climate-change/
France successfully generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, we can too.
India is also going the same way:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-power-key-topic-india/story.aspx?guid=%7B99F6A264-DC8B-437B-A3C7-4B4883DB8E17%7D
Is there an inexhaustible supply of uranium/plutonium ?
E-K, the simple answer..
Yes. Plutonium is a synthetic element. It is created in a nuclear reactor. Synthetic elements have been ‘discovered at a rate of about two a dcade since 1939, most with exceedingly short half lives. However, there is reason to believe- for reasons of atomic structure, predicted by Glen Seaborg, that Elements 115-120 rest on a ‘plateau of stabilty’, as in have much longer half-lives and are therefore potentially to Plutonium and Americium what those elemts are to coal.
Sorry for the geeky answer!
Not ‘geeky’ Joe – but excellent ! Where can I get some ? My neighbours are into solar panels and I’d just lurrv to prove ‘em wrong. They’ll be absolutely freeezing during cloud cover and I’ll be as warm as toast. Hnnn.
Ooops Just noticed I forgot to sign in on the Gordon Brown and the Environment – so Jean Luc or anyone who has a come-back to Anonymous it was I.
You banned in China? – that wouldn’t be because China erroneously blames Conservative MEPs for quotas on textile imports. China believes in Free Trade. Did I hear they are already manufacturing toys for next xmas, and cheap lighbulbs for sale in Europe.
Elle and I thought Power Stations were built on the coast, so that they could be ’sunk’ when decommissioned. Isn’t Dungeness A (kent) already sinking without rising sea levels. lol!
If sea levels rise 1.7 metres I guess we’ll be using punts or jet-skis to get to work, cars could become redundant and CO2 emissions will be reduced.
Seems there are two choices in life: cut down on cholesterol, or wait till science and your doctor tells you to reduce cholesterol levels.
PS – For the money we pay for Nuclear Power Stations, you’d think there’d be safeguards in case of accident or flood. But hey BNL might be a private enterprise, but it would still require the government to pick up the tab.
I just love that kind of ‘private’ enterprise.
Anon – a netowrk fo solar panels and wind turbines…er what about on still nights? What re we going to do then?
of course we need nuclear power and it is not beyond the wit of man to seal them even if they do sink into the sea (as all of Eastern Englnad will do within 1000 years, allegedly).
Also, flood defences though expensive are not diffcult to achieve. I cite the entire netherlands as an example.
There is little point in listening to Greenpeace who are engaged in a middle lass hobby and do little but discredit the entire Green argument buy their refusal to listen to anyone lese even as time and again their myopic lies are exposed. As I keep saying just because they are liars does not mean that there is nothing to it . Did you notice the possibility that the IPCC report was fixed for the denial side following political pressure. It has been reported in New Scientists which is a pretty respectable and quietist tome
The lead article in the Speccie today deal with exactly the problem of coastal erosion ,and like most Green alarms it is wildly exaggerated . On the other hand the Spec identifies sea levels the most pressing problem ,especially as they may vary anyway and w are in parts vulnerable naturally. You may well know of the position in Norfolk
Provided a policy to deal with the problem is in place there is absolutely no reason to be concerned , parts of the Netherlands are 15 feet beneath sea level and it is not a problem. At the moment though ,despite all the worrying about nebulous and science-fiction doomsdays our investment in the real problem of coastal erosion is diminished in fact our defences against floods in general are inadequate . This makes it impossible to obtain insurance for many home owners, and thereby wipes out millions of value.
Two things are constant .Politicians would rather jet off to climate world forums than deal with the problems of the constituents and the Greens cannot touch a grown up issue without turning it into a teenage angst in your pants fantasy of Armageddon.
Another very good spot Elee which chimes nicely with my reading to day . Incidentally I do keep complete records of two or three papers and journals on about twenty subjects if you are ever looking or something. So do many others I know , its all there. Nick Drew can go back years and years !
CU is right there is limited scope for that sort of alternative energy source in this country . the most practical plan would be to dam the Severn but the Bird Lobby and wet land freaks won’t have it .
I rather agree with them. Those wind farms are an aesthetic blight and they spoil the view . Nuclear Power is the obvious option but there is no reason why there shouldn’t be tax breaks for greener cars , VAT exemption for green products and any number of positive incentives. Every time they get it wrong with local taxes beating inflation every year why should we be punished for our greenless ways .
The taxation regime in this country is just to high to start putting additional loads on and after ten years sensitivity to stealth tax is understandably red raw.
There is no trust for virtuous taxation and nor should there be there have been to many lies
With so many liars about all I can say is that its a good job I`m here
There’s so much misinformation at the moment, as I’ve jsut posted about. The question of Britain was always going to be fraught, should sea levels rise. The question is which scientists to believe.
I believe the scientists that aren’t backed by the politicians – generally a good rule of thumb, James.
Back to solar panels.
The necessary remoteness of these things bothers me from a militarist point of view.
[...] being flooded during tidal surges. I’m not the only one concerned about this, which I have written about before, so is Low Carbon Kid. Please share and [...]