Other publications worth a look

 

(1) Twenty-one years since Chernobyl the fact that there has not been another accident with a core meltdown may be lulling us into a false sense of security, but every year there are thousands of incidents. The Forsmark incident last summer should have shattered the complacent approach. An accident on the scale of Chernobyl was probably only avoided by minutes.

Residual Risk: An account of events in nuclear power plants since Chernobyl in 1986, by Georgui Kastchiev et al, European Greens, May 2007

(2) A new report published by Greenpeace reveals that country after country has seen nuclear construction programmes go considerably over budget. The nuclear industry, despite assertions to the contrary, is facing spiralling costs, construction delays, safety failings and falling global demand for its technology. Europe's newest reactor in Finland is already 18 months behind and €700 million over budget only 18 months into the construction project.

The Economics of Nuclear Power, by P. Bradford, A. Froggatt, D. Milborrow and S. Thomas, Greenpeace, May 2007.

(3) Nuclear power couldn’t curb climate change without expanding worldwide at the same rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keeping up that rate for 50 years, according to a report compiled by environmentalists, academics and nuclear industry proponents. 10 dumps the size of Yucca Mountain would be needed to store the extra generated waste by the needed nuclear generation boom.

Nuclear Power: Joint Fact Finding, Keystone Center, June 2007

(4) The Austrian government has published a report on nuclear power which confirms the widespread consensus in Austria that nuclear power is too risky and burdens future generations with dangerous waste. A new reactor building programme would come too late to contribute significantly towards the solving climate change and “Peak Oil”. Nuclear power is not even a cheap solution: energy efficiency measures and alternative energies are superior ecologically and economically. Thus nuclear power is not the convincing solution some claim; rather it is no solution at all.

Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability available in English

(5) Throughout its fifty year history, Britain's nuclear industry has consistently failed to deliver on its promises. Now, less than five years after the financial collapse of British Energy, the UK's commercial nuclear generator, the public, parliament, and the financial markets are being asked once again to believe that a new generation of nuclear power stations can produce electricity safely and without government subsidy. And once again, there is good reason to believe that the industry's predictions are as spurious as in previous decades.

Broken Promises: Why the industry won't deliver, Corporate Watch, June 2007

(6) Half of the world's energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, according to a new study commissioned by Greenpeace. It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world's electricity and 65% of global heat demand.

Energy Revolution: A sustainable world energy outlook, Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council, January 2007.

(7) Greenpeace commissioned the Flood Hazard Research Centre, at Middlesex University, to examine the four existing nuclear sites in England considered likely to be earmarked for new reactors. These were Hinkley Point in Somerset, Dungeness in Kent, Sizewell in Suffolk and Bradwell in Essex. The study concluded that all the sites are at risk from significant sea level rises and storm surges in the future, and therefore are not suitable locations for new reactors.

'The impacts of climate change on nuclear power stations sites, commissioned by Greenpeace and authored by Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre.

(8) The Oxford Research Group asks two questions: how dangerous is nuclear power? And can it help reduce CO2 emissions? The short answer to the first questions is ‘very’: nuclear power is uniquely dangerous when compared to other energy sources. For the second question the answer is ‘not enough and not in time’.

Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, Edited by Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, with a foreword by Jürgen Trittin, ORG March 2007.

(9) An American coalition of groups called Grass Roots Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) has launched a new report called “False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda”. The report is a compelling exposé of the nuclear industry propaganda and highlights misleading public relations attempts while offering cheaper, faster, safer solutions to mitigate climate change. With a foreword by Robert Alvarez, Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy (1993-1999), the new report shows why the nuclear industry’s claims are misleading and why nuclear power is not part of the solution to our energy crisis.

False Promises: Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda, Grace Energy Initiative, October 2006

(10) Decentralised Energy Reports

A suite of documents produced by Greenpeace over the past year on Decentralised Energy.

(1) Decentralising UK Energy, by WADE for Greenpeace UK, March 2006
(2) Powering London in the 21st Century, PB Power for Greenpeace UK and the Mayor of London, March 2006.
(3) Powering Edinburgh into the 21st Century, PB Power for Greenpeace, WWF Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council, November 2006
(4) Decentralising Scottish Energy, by WADE for Greenpeace UK, March 2007.

Watch the Greenpeace video on Decentralised Energy

(11) Too hot to handle?

Oxford Research Group’s latest briefing calculates that, if nuclear power were to be able to make a reasonable contribution to combating climate change, and, at the same time taking into account the global increase in population and electricity demand, then around four reactors would have to begin construction every month between now and 2075. So nuclear power has little chance of making any impact on climate change, yet even a small expansion in the use of nuclear power for electricity generation would have serious consequences for the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that do not now have them and for nuclear terrorism.

Frank Barnaby and James Kemp, Too hot to handle? The future of civil nuclear power, Oxford Research Group, June 2007

(12) Dangerous and expensive

A group of experts gathered in Westminster, on 28th November 2006 to put the case for a non-nuclear energy strategy in the UK. The meeting was sponsored by Dr Ian Gibson MP and co-chaired by a panel of cross-party MPs. “Nuclear Power: Unnecessary, Dangerous and Expensive” is a report based on the presentations that were made on the day. Contributors on alternative energy strategies include Allan Jones, Development Officer of the London Climate Change Agency, Professor Susan Roaf of the Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development, Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, Dr Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School. On proliferation, terrorism and the dangers of nuclear power, Dr Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, Dr Kate Hudson, chair of CND, Dr Frank Barnaby of the Oxford Research Group, Richard Bramhall, Dr David Lowry and Anthony Froggatt.

Nuclear Power No Thanks website 13th July 2007

(13) Nuclear Power: only problems, no solutions. European Petition Campaign Against Nuclear Power, March 2007.

Facts and figures about nuclear power.

(14) World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007

The prospects of a nuclear power renaissance in Britain are zero and the global industry is in steep decline.
This report casts severe doubts over the government's expected proposals this year to build up to 10 nuclear power stations to replace a rapidly ageing capacity.

(15) Delivering a low carbon Britain

The UK can cut its CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, according to 80% Challenge: Delivering a low carbon Britain - a new report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), WWF and the RSPB. The report says this can be achieved without new nuclear power.

(16) Lean Guide

The world's supply of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry may already have passed the point at which it is able to supply the energy needed even to dispose of its own wastes. The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, A Life-Cycle in Trouble, details how the nuclear industry will be forced to become a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels. 'The evidence is clear: even under the most optimistic scenarios for uranium supplies, the industry will face `energy bankruptcy' in a matter of decades.

(17) Olkiluoto-3 reactor

Greenpeace Finland has produced an updated Factsheet (March 2008) on the Olkiluoto-3 reactor.

 

Briefings for past consultations

Nuclear power, climate change and the Energy Review, a briefing prepared by Friends of the Earth (England, Wales & N Ireland), June 2006