I’m sorry, but despite having cracking policies on a range of social and environmental issues, this from @TheGreenParty’s 2024 manifesto is truly lamentable. It repeats the same-old-same-old knee-jerk anti-nuclear canards that have traditionally been deployed by anti-nuclear organisations over decades.
So let’s take a deeper look 🧵
So let’s take a deeper look 🧵
“Nuclear Energy… is unsafe”
Nope nope nopity nope – per terawatt generated, nuclear energy is amongst the very safest of forms of electricity generation. @OurWorldInData crunched the stats on this, and this article is definitely worth a read:
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources…
Nope nope nopity nope – per terawatt generated, nuclear energy is amongst the very safest of forms of electricity generation. @OurWorldInData crunched the stats on this, and this article is definitely worth a read:
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources…
“Nuclear Power is much more expensive than renewables”:
Undoubtedly, nuclear plants in the West currently have high capital costs – though it should be noted that it’s a very different matter in countries that have adopted a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to nuclear builds and have retained their nuclear skills base, supply chains and learning, rather than allowing them to atrophy as in the UK.
The broader point though is that a new nuclear plant is going to be generating cheap reliable low-carbon electricity for the next 60 years (at least), and these days, probably 80+years going forward. Besides which, this is obviously not an either/or proposition; renewables and nuclear are perfectly capable of working in synergy.
Undoubtedly, nuclear plants in the West currently have high capital costs – though it should be noted that it’s a very different matter in countries that have adopted a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to nuclear builds and have retained their nuclear skills base, supply chains and learning, rather than allowing them to atrophy as in the UK.
The broader point though is that a new nuclear plant is going to be generating cheap reliable low-carbon electricity for the next 60 years (at least), and these days, probably 80+years going forward. Besides which, this is obviously not an either/or proposition; renewables and nuclear are perfectly capable of working in synergy.
“The development of nuclear plants is too slow given the pace of action we need on climate”
Ha, okay. So, firstly, it doesn’t need to be this way. As with anything, build and deployment rates will improve with standardisation of design and repetition, but let me ask this;
When exactly do the Green Party think that we shall no longer need additional low carbon power??? If you think that in 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years we can take our foot off the pedal in attempting to meaningfully cut emissions you are I’m afraid *tripping*.
We will clearly need additional sources of low carbon power (AND the simultaneous reduction in the use of fossil fuels) far FAR into the future. To not recognise this essential fact belies a gross misapprehension of the sheer scale of the challenge facing us
Ha, okay. So, firstly, it doesn’t need to be this way. As with anything, build and deployment rates will improve with standardisation of design and repetition, but let me ask this;
When exactly do the Green Party think that we shall no longer need additional low carbon power??? If you think that in 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years we can take our foot off the pedal in attempting to meaningfully cut emissions you are I’m afraid *tripping*.
We will clearly need additional sources of low carbon power (AND the simultaneous reduction in the use of fossil fuels) far FAR into the future. To not recognise this essential fact belies a gross misapprehension of the sheer scale of the challenge facing us
“They (also) create unmanageable quantities of radioactive waste”
Okay, some important perspective on UK nuclear waste is required here.
This cube 11.45mt on a side, represents the packaged volume of the UKs reprocessed spent nuclear fuel (1500m3) from both existing & estimated future arisings *up to 2135*.
It constitutes 0.03% of the total UK nuclear waste inventory by volume but accounts for 76.1% of the radioactivity. This stuff is hot, but not too hot to handle (though I wouldn't advice configuring it as per this picture 😅)
Okay, some important perspective on UK nuclear waste is required here.
This cube 11.45mt on a side, represents the packaged volume of the UKs reprocessed spent nuclear fuel (1500m3) from both existing & estimated future arisings *up to 2135*.
It constitutes 0.03% of the total UK nuclear waste inventory by volume but accounts for 76.1% of the radioactivity. This stuff is hot, but not too hot to handle (though I wouldn't advice configuring it as per this picture 😅)
@OurWorldInData Here is a fly-by of this 1500m3 cube of the TOTALITY of the UKs High Level Waste (reprocessed spent nuclear fuel - existing and estimated arisings up to 2135) plonked next to the London Eye for scale.
The packaged volume of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) at ~500,000 m3 accounts for 11.2% of the total UK radioactive waste by volume & 23.9% of radioactivity.
It should be noted that the *reported* volume of ILW is actually only 247,000m3 - so just under half of the *packaged* waste - the difference in volumes being being made up of the... errr... packaging; i.e. containers, immobilising materials (resins etc), concrete overpacks.
It should be noted that the *reported* volume of ILW is actually only 247,000m3 - so just under half of the *packaged* waste - the difference in volumes being being made up of the... errr... packaging; i.e. containers, immobilising materials (resins etc), concrete overpacks.
The VAST majority of ‘radioactive waste’ though is composed of Low Level Waste (LLW), which constitutes 32.4% by volume, and Very Low Level Waste (VLLW) which accounts for 62.1% of volume, and which each account for <0.1% of the total radioactivity of the inventory.
These Low Activity Waste volumes are composed of misc. contaminated materials ranging fm concrete & rubble, some activated metals, soil etc, thru to very lightly contaminated overalls, pens, gloves, medical waste and odds n sods.
These Low Activity Waste volumes are composed of misc. contaminated materials ranging fm concrete & rubble, some activated metals, soil etc, thru to very lightly contaminated overalls, pens, gloves, medical waste and odds n sods.
“and are inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons”
Oh boy! This is *such* nonsense; the UK's civil nuclear program and its nuclear weapons program are NOT inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons, and here’s why:
- International Agreements: The UK adheres to international agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. These agreements include safeguards to ensure fissile material from civil programs ISN’T diverted for military use.
- Separate Programs: The UK has separate government departments overseeing each program. The Ministry of Defence manages the nuclear weapons program, while the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oversees civil nuclear power.
Fuel Source: Civil nuclear reactors use enriched uranium with a far lower fissile isotope concentration (U-235) compared to what's required for nuclear weapons.
Oh boy! This is *such* nonsense; the UK's civil nuclear program and its nuclear weapons program are NOT inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons, and here’s why:
- International Agreements: The UK adheres to international agreements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. These agreements include safeguards to ensure fissile material from civil programs ISN’T diverted for military use.
- Separate Programs: The UK has separate government departments overseeing each program. The Ministry of Defence manages the nuclear weapons program, while the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oversees civil nuclear power.
Fuel Source: Civil nuclear reactors use enriched uranium with a far lower fissile isotope concentration (U-235) compared to what's required for nuclear weapons.
It’s a shame that the Green Party have such a blind spot with nuclear; I would contend that if they did support nuclear energy that support for/membership of the party could massively increase.
We previously commissioned a couple of polls (via @IpsosUK) that indicate that even those involved in environmental campaigning organisations – let alone the general public - support the building of new nuclear plants to replace those that are being phased out.
The blue bar image is for all respondents, the green bar image is for those who declared they were involved in an environmental campaigning organisation.
I've circled the current Green Party position on nuclear new build for easy reference 😉
Who da thunk it? 🤷
Peace ✌️
We previously commissioned a couple of polls (via @IpsosUK) that indicate that even those involved in environmental campaigning organisations – let alone the general public - support the building of new nuclear plants to replace those that are being phased out.
The blue bar image is for all respondents, the green bar image is for those who declared they were involved in an environmental campaigning organisation.
I've circled the current Green Party position on nuclear new build for easy reference 😉
Who da thunk it? 🤷
Peace ✌️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
