March 23, 2011
The full fallout of Fukushima is still unknown. There has been a great deal of focus on the potential health dangers – understandable given the fears of local people, but easy to downplay in the wake of a wave that killed more than 10,000 people.
However, the effect on the nuclear industry will go much further than headline-grabbing concerns around the health impacts. Following the incredibly expensive evacuation, there has been a suspension of sales of food from the area, and now even fears about drinking water in Tokyo. These measures will hopefully ensure the health impact remains minimal.
As well as being incredibly distressing for the people living nearby, this is all costing a fortune. Add to it the clean-up costs, more stringent safety regulations and an inevitable increase in insurance arrangements, and the economics of nuclear will be forever changed. And they weren't particularly healthy to start with.
Our energy secretary, Chris Huhne, has said all such costs would be borne by the industry in the event of anything similar happening in the UK. (While we're not at risk of major earthquakes and tsunamis, our nuclear stations are vulnerable to sea surges, rising sea levels and terrorist attacks.) This would make for an eye-watering insurance quote, especially now the industry has lost its no-claims bonus.
No nuclear power station has been built without state cash – as our government recognises. No subsidies means no nuclear. Supporting nuclear means getting behind taxpayer-funded subsidies for, in George Monbiot's words, the "liars" who run the industry.
In contrast to the billions spent on nuclear, there remains real reluctance to invest in renewable energy. Only last week ministers cut support for small-scale renewable power. Their plans for electricity market reform will not support the development of offshore wind and other marine renewables.
For decades governments have fawned over fossil fuels and nuclear power at the expense of renewable power and energy saving. Nuclear has had billions of pounds of taxpayers' money – and still cannot produce electricity at a competitive price. By contrast, after just a few years' support in Germany, solar panels are expected to be producing power without the need for public subsidies.
Energy saving is much the same – our dilapidated buildings leak much of the energy we spend billions producing. A nationwide refit of homes – kickstarted by the government via its current energy bill – would create jobs as well as saving energy, but progress remains slow and halting.
Fears that the public won't accept large-scale renewable power because of the impact on our landscapes are understandable. But there is currently more public support for investment in renewable energy than in nuclear. Friends of the Earth has launched a new petition for those who want an energy future based on saving energy and renewable power.
The tide is turning. It's time to highlight the growing body of evidence showing we can keep the lights on with renewable power if we cut the amount of energy we waste. Experts from the Department of Energy and Climate Change's chief scientific adviser, David MacKay, to the respected European consultancy Ecofys, agree that it is possible to provide the energy we need and reduce carbon emissions without nuclear.
Nuclear power offers no safe solution for waste, economics that don't add up, and dangers of nuclear proliferation. An energy future is possible without these negatives.
