The Guardian editorial makes many strong points, not least highlighting the exigencies of potential security compromises and terrorism vulnerabilities of the planned new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But there is a fatal flaw in the arguments you set out, which merits challenge. The Editorial asserts: “Nuclear power has a trump card: it is a zero-carbon technology which delivers a continuous, uninterrupted supply.” This is demonstrably untrue. On the latter point, you only have to consult published the operating record of nuclear reactors to see this is an unsustainable claim. All reactors have lengthy planned outages (shut downs) for operational reasons; some have significant unplanned outages due to operational failures; and in the extreme case of post-accident safety prudence, such as in Japan, their 54 reactors were all closed for years ( nearly 50 still are closed) after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident, and become hugely expensive “stranded assets.” On the former point on alleged zero carbon status of nuclear plants, [but] the carbon footprint of nuclear power is substantial, if the whole ‘cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel chain ( ie uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel production, in-reactor fuel irradiation, storage and ultimate final long term management), is properly calculated.
David Lowry’s Blog 14th Sept 2017 read more »
