More like this
Monbiot joins Lovelock in the nuclear power camp
George Monbiot says risk of meltdown is small compared to damaging effects of ‘deep green energy’
Support for nuclear power has fallen among the British public by 12 per cent since the Fukushima disaster, according to a new poll. But the UK nuclear industry has reason to cheer regardless, because left-wing environmentalist George Monbiot has today explained why he now supports nuclear power.
Monbiot has written extensively on climate change and the radical steps needed to avert disaster. Among his other works are attacks on corporations and the dangers of Bob Geldof and Bono.
In his column for the Guardian today headed 'Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power', Monbiot explains that he still loathes "the liars who run the nuclear industry" but he accepts that nuclear power has to be part of a green energy mix.
Monbiot argues that the risk of meltdown at a nuclear power station is small in comparison to the damaging effects of coal power and even renewables. "Deep green energy production - decentralised, based on the products of the land - is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown," he writes.
As an example he explains how the damming of rivers in Britain before the industrial revolution was "renewable, picturesque and devastating", since it wiped out stocks of migratory fish.
Fukushima has not put Monbiot off nuclear because "a crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami... The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting... Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation".
Monbiot's support for nuclear has rather overshadowed a survey released today by Friends of the Earth. The GFK NOP poll shows that public support for nuclear power has fallen 12 per cent to 35 per cent following the partial meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi. The ranks of those opposed to nuclear have swollen nine per cent and now stands at 28 per cent.
Despite these figures it is clear the nuclear industry is far from finished. Monbiot is not the only prominent environmentalist to support nuclear. Legendary scientist and Gaia hypothesis originator James Lovelock has been a proponent of nuclear power for years.
Meanwhile, much of the talk in the media in the wake of Fukushima has been not of a new blossoming of tidal and wind generation but of safer and cheaper nuclear technologies like Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors - a 1950s idea that has now been boosted by Chinese investment.
Opposition to nuclear power is now starting to look like a position occupied by the uninformed masses of the public (who could be easily swayed with a well-run propaganda campaign after they inevitably forget about Fukushima) and die-hard environmentalists who don't give too much thought to the practicalities of a world without cheap, abundant energy. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Monbiot has finally woken up to the realities of nuclear power, and Lovelock's unique insight and analysis. "Revenge of Gaia" opened my eyes as a pro-environment supporter. Basically we have gone too far and now have no real choice other than to use nuclear power to preserve our environment.
Seems that Monbiot is just an other media whore. Contradicting the current tendencies of people's opinion always produces attention. And it is easy to avoid having an own opinion, just put a minus in front of the every value an write it down (and don`t forget to neglect any inconsistant facts).
To generate 1 GWyear of electricity:
Mine 3,200,000 tonnes of coal; emitt 8,500,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses and particulates; create 900,000 cubic metres of toxic/radioactive fly-ash. OR:
Mine 800,000 tonnes of uranium ore; produce 35 tonnes of enriched uranium; emitt no greenhouse gasses; create 35 tonnes of radiotoxic waste. OR:
Be paid to take 200 tonnes of 'waste' thorium ore, from the mining of rare earth elements; produce 1 tonne of thorium fuel, for a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR); emitt no greenhouse gasses; produce 1 tonne of waste, which decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storeable).
I hope you take the time to study LFTRs and I hope you will conclude that nuclear energy from LFTRs does fit into a sustainable energy paradigm.
Watt-for watt of generation, the cycle-life costs of wind power is 4X and solar power 20X more expensive than LFTRs, which can be baldly interpreted as 4X and20X more ecologically destructive.
I host the only UK blog on LFTRs, Google: "LFTRs to Power the Planet", or try:
http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/
We merry band of (not too effective) LFTR disciples need all of the support we can get.
I am extremely disappointed and, moreover, concerned about Monbiot's newfound position on nuclear power. While certainly, his reference to energies from coal or hydro-power dams are valid, has he not considered the very foundation of nuclear power, that is: uranium. Issues of radidation aside, the very process of extracting uranium - a non-renewable product - is hugely polluting and intensive in its use of both energy (usually from mainstream sources, ie coal) and water. Coming from South Austraila, I have seen uranium mining in operation and seen the excessive usage of water (I'm talking over 280,000,000L per day) and energy, and the scarring of the land and the potential for radiation related illness for those living nearby mines. Further, issues around indigenous land ownership are pertinent, yet sidelined. However, extraction process aside: what do we do once our uranium supplies are exhausted? Adding to this process, is the conversion of uranium into energy, yet another energy and water intensive process with high amounts of waste. Waste that is difficult, if not impossible, to dispose of safely (in terms of human and environmental health) and can be made into hugely destructive weapons. Frankly, I fail to see how nuclear energy can possibly fit into a sustainable energy paradigm. While certainly damming rivers is not the answer, there are many alternatives, such as wind, geo-thermal and wave power. If more energy, money and brainpower was invested into develping genuinely sustainable alternatives, rather than in nuclear, I strongly believe we would see some truly remarkable and truly sustainable energy solutions.
Has he fallen on his head? Finally Monbiot talks sense.