Although we agree on many things, we also disagree on many things - wind turbines, organic food, heat pumps - all have their adherents and detractors even within the Wasteless community. But more than anything else, whether we should support, oppose or just tolerate nuclear power is a dividing issue. We held a public debate on this a couple of years back, and when a vote was taken at the end, the audience was split 50/50. Since then the discusssion has rumbled on. Below are some parts of an ongoing discussion. If you'd like to write in, I'll add your opinion to these:

  WHY I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND ON NUCLEAR POWER -    Dennis Twist

I used to be against nuclear power, mainly on the grounds that there wasn't, and never could be, a satisfactory solution to the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste and that it wasn't fair to bequeath this burden to our descendants.  The waste disposal issue hasn't changed, of course, but to my mind it is now less important than the problems we (and, even more, our descendants) will face regarding the availability and security of supplies of oil and natural gas and the consequences of climate change.

Availability

The combination of the increasing world demand for oil and gas and the limited supply of a finite resource means that there is going to be pressure to use oil and gas for transport, heating and as a chemical feedstock in preference to using them for power generation.  Nuclear power will help to meet the power demand - a demand which is likely to increase because electricity consumption tends to go up even if people reduce their usage

of other forms of energy.

Security

Most of the world's supplies of oil and gas are in areas which are, or could be, unstable and/or politically hostile to the UK and a nuclear plant located here would provide us with a much more secure source of electricity generation.  Unlike oil and, particularly, gas - which are difficult and expensive to store in large quantities - it is commercially and physically practicable to keep buffer stocks of nuclear fuel (either in the enriched form or, in larger quantities, unenriched). 

Climate change

Unlike fossil-fuelled power stations, operating nuclear power plants have very low carbon footprints.  Certainly, there are substantial carbon emissions during the construction phase but over the complete plant life cycle the carbon output per kWh is low.

And nuclear waste disposal?

This remains a serious issue, but it is just an incremental problem, not a new one and the waste liability from a new build would be only a small fraction of the liability that already exists.  Arguing against a new nuclear plant on the grounds that it increases the problem is like arguing that one shouldn't consume any finite resource - a valid point, but not one that weighs heavily against the factors in favour.                                                                                          

Footnote: I'm not alone in this volte-face - James Lovelock switched some years ago, George Monbiot recently.

 “An intelligent man knows how to solve the problem that a wise man would avoid” – unknown. 

I suspect James Lovelock and George Monbiot are intelligent men. I am not so sure they are wise. Even if there were no other option nuclear remains the wrong thing to do.  Very quickly, just three things that make nuclear power a bad idea:

1. What do we tell the kids? Not as much radioactive waste is produced by new generation plants but mighty hazardous it is and here for many generations. Is this ethical?
2. What do we tell the neighbours? If we adopt nuclear as our solution to climate change then every country in the world has the right to build nuclear (including Iran, North Korea etc). Is this secure?
3. Just another junky fix? As all countries seek to follow suit then demand for uranium (a finite material in the form usable in nuclear power stations) increases. Not only do we stay dependent on oil but we also become dependent upon uranium (bringing with it the same territorial and geopolitical problems). Is this smart? 

Nuclear is a short-term solution with no hope. Future generations will look back and despair that we chose such a short-term technical fix when the problem demanded so much more of us. If nuclear power were the only choice then I, personally, would still say no but I would fully understand why so many good and true people are acknowledging its place in our energy mix.
 

Why would I, personally, say no? Simply because I don’t think the human race deserves to be let off the climate change hook. A technical fix (and nuclear is only a sticking plaster, not the fix) will lull us in to a sense arrogance that will not solve future problems of food, water and population. Climate change is, I believe, our opportunity to work out how the human race learns to live in balance with our one planet. Nuclear power just gets in the way of this.

However there is an alternative. One that is a far better; sustainable, secure, available here and now and low carbon. One where technology will play its part but one that is not dependent on things yet to be discovered or invented. The solution I am describing involves things like:

1. Decentralising the energy production system for the UK (all sorts of energy owned by all sorts of people in all sorts of places). Common elsewhere, can begin tomorrow in the UK.
2. Adopting a new business sector for the UK, which makes profits when people save energy instead of consuming it.  Big businesses do it, householders and small businesses are deprived of it.
3. Reinstating our commitment to our farming industry to minimise the energy used when we eat.

All of this reconnects people to their planet. None of this is rocket science (or nuclear physics) yet to be invented. All of it involves vision, courage and, most importantly, people. None of it we have to wait for. And the best bit is that we – the people – don’t need anyone’s permission to get on with it. We can lead and politicians will have to follow.

 If nuclear power is an intelligent mans solution to climate change then trusting and empowering the people is the wise mans way of avoiding current and future impacts of people on the planet!

Reply from David Gillen 4th Oct:

Many times in a Wasteless meeting someone has said “We need to educate the public” and I have replied “It is we who need to be educated.”  Well, it’s never too late to start so I would be grateful if someone can explain to me how an electric hob is more efficient than gas (as stated in the Newsletter). 

Perhaps Mr Twist could explain the subtleties of his argument - “Yes, nuclear power produces waste but that’s no reason to not use a finite resource”.  How much ore is there, Dennis?  And how much energy is expended getting it out of the ground and processed?  But never mind facts and figures, Lovelock agrees with Dennis; Lovelock is the chap who says we should use one third of our land for towns, factories etc, one third for intensive agriculture and one third should be left wild.  Does that sound like a good idea?  I don’t think Lovelock explained where the energy for said intensive agriculture was going to come from. 

But, never mind, Monbiot agrees with Dennis.  That would be the Monbiot who wrote that individuals can do nothing about the problems of peak oil and climate change.  Well, if that’s the case, Wasteless can disband. 

Come on, Dennis - if you have an argument in favour of Nuclear be good enough to make it.  “We’ve got a lot of waste - a bit more won’t matter and some awfully nice chaps agree with me” is an insult.
 

Dennis did get one thing right, though, and its good to see joined up thinking in the newsletter.  Demand for electricity is likely to increase.  Evidence of the veracity of his assertion is there on the same page. 

One of the “slights of hand” of the Pro-Nuclear lobby is that nuclear is very good at meeting the base load.  Another way of looking at it is that nuclear is very bad at matching supply to demand so other generators are switched off at night allowing nuclear to supply the base load.  This adversely affects the profitability of flexible efficient generators.  The more we increase the base load the more the nuclear lobby will argue we need nuclear - the more we use Economy 7 the more we increase the base load so get building those nuclear power plants - cook electric, build nuclear.

Joined up thinking! Well done, Wasteless.

Reply from Denis Twist 7th Oct:

I think that Adam's suggestion of a Newsletter Special is probably the best way to proceed, but I feel that I should respond now to David Gillen's comments on my original piece (which was, of course, just my personal view and not that of the Wasteless board, let alone of its members) - so here goes:

1. I didn't like nuclear plants before and I still don't but I think that in order to have a secure electricity supply in 10-30 years time the UK should build some new nuclear plants now to replace those reaching the end of their useful lives. This is a temporary stop-gap measure, not a permanent solution.

2. I am not advocating nuclear plants as the answer to CO2 emissions, though I do think they would provide a useful contribution. I deliberately put "climate change" as the last of my three reasons in favour of nuclear power.

3. I think that David has missed the point when he scorns my argument that we shouldn't rule out nuclear power on the grounds that it produces waste. Of course it does, and it is a major problem (though only an incremental one) but in my view it is the lesser of two evils. The point I was trying to make was that the use of ANY finite resource produces problems and that we cannot rule out nuclear power, or any other activity, on the basis that it uses up the resource and/or causes waste or other problems. Should we stop mining iron, copper or other minerals or, indeed stop using fossil fuels to make the chemicals which are used in practically every item in our households, workplaces, hospitals,schools etc?

4. David's dismissal of Lovelock and Monbiot as "awfully nice chaps" is completely misplaced - both of them are eminent and serious environmentalists.

David Gillen 16th Oct:

So, Dennis thinks I have missed the point and has kindly repeated himself.  If we had been in the same room he could have said it louder too!  But no, I must apologise, it would appear I have not made myself clear.  So please forgive me if I labour the point - “Fred Bloggs agrees with me” is not an argument.  It does not matter how eminent, serious or expert Fred Bloggs is, Fred Bloggs agrees with me is not an argument, or, put it another way, it is an invalid ie irrational argument.  Refer to any half decent elementary textbook on logic, if you need to.

There are innocent people languishing in our jails because the DNA “experts” could not understand maths.  The crew of the space shuttle died because NASA experts, blinded by political and economic considerations, failed to do the correct sums on the probability of the failure of “O” rings and brought about a political and costly disaster. 

The head of MEA told our meeting that Denmark provides half of its electricity from wind.  That made me think, “This man is either a knave or a fool”.  Now, one might hope the head of MEA would have some expertise and integrity.  So what do you think?

More and more I am finding Mobbs wheeled on as an expert yet his book is riddled with errors.  It did not bode well when, on the first page of the introduction, I found he mis-stated the First Law of Thermodynamics.  That what he has written is rubbish is evident from his next paragraph.  Let me give you just one further example from Mobbs. 

If you want to work out how much land it will take to produce a certain amount of energy from wood it would help if you used the correct figure for the calorific value of wood.  Mobbs has it wrong.  G.I.G.O.  Tell me, have I made the point “Fred Bloggs agrees with me is not an argument”?

The “Experts” in the US Military procurement gave the “Experts” in the arms industry the wrong figure for the cost of fuel.  They quoted the few cents per gallon the military pays when they buy fuel.  They should have quoted the nearly 50 dollars per gallon that it costs the army to deliver the fuel to the theatre of operations.  The result?  Big tanks are fitted with gas turbine engines with single figure part load efficiency.  Crews must run these engines in order to run the onboard computers and telecoms.  Oil is so valuable that we will send men and women to war for it in tanks that throw it away as if it were free.

Strangely enough, I did not “miss the point” that Dennis was giving us his opinion.  Indeed, the purpose of my email was to ask if, instead of his opinion, he could offer any argument in support of his position. 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines opinion as a judgement or belief resting on insufficient ground for demonstration.  Climate change and peak oil are problems worthy of serious attention and we will need more than mere opinion to solve them. 

As Was.soc Treasurer I’m sure Dennis has been counting the society’s pennies carefully, but, as a member of the Science and Technology advisory group it is his job to give proper advice and guidance to Was.soc.  If this were done we would not read the sort of nonsense that was the last newsletter.  Whose opinion is it that induction hobs are more efficient than gas? 

The Was.soc Nuclear debate was indeed well attended.  Unfortunately, the subject was not well debated.  Now here perhaps I do miss the point.  Is DT saying that because half the vote was with him that validates his opinion, some sort of limp-wristed, woolly minded, modern misunderstanding of “it’s always good to hear both sides of the argument”?  It is good to hear a properly developed argument.  Does the vote being split suggest we should both build and not build a sort of Schrodinger’s cat, of a nuclear power station?  No.  The vote is utterly irrelevant.

The problem of waste is only incremental.  What Tosh!  Again, this is invalid.  In the film “Alice’s Restaurant”, our hero, on finding the municipal dump closed, decided to throw his van load of rubbish down an embankment to join the existing pile.  Our hero was nevertheless prosecuted.  It’s lucky for him, though, that he did not use the infallible “Dennis defence” it’s only incremental (for that is what he thought when he threw down the rubbish) because, as a result of being found guilty of littering, he was later found not to be moral enough to be drafted to go and kill innocent Vietnamese. 

IF you’re in a hole, STOP DIGGING.  Not dig a bigger hole so you can put more waste in.  Our problem is we are throwing away our planet’s finite resources and fouling the nest.  The solution is not likely to be use more of them, use them faster.  For God’s sake, Man, Wake Up.