Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming (2007)

[kristopher]

Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming

All over the world the fortunes of civil nuclear power are rising – why? Many in government hope that nuclear power would increase energy security during a time of unstable competition and surging demand. Some claim nuclear power is key to reducing global CO2 emissions. For others, it is because nuclear power opens the door to nuclear weapons.

This report 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’.

By comparing the security consequences of civil nuclear power to its contribution to tackling climate change, Oxford Research Group shows that rather than making a positive contribution, an expansion of civil nuclear power would:

Make efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons much more difficult.
Increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.
Make a negligible short-term contribution to lowering CO2 emissions.
Make a negligible contribution to energy security.

Finally, we show that nuclear power is not needed. Germany, for example, already has more generating capacity from wind-power than the UK nuclear component and within six years will have more solar powered capacity too. If the UK pursued similar policies, by 2020 wind would provide well over six times and solar three times the generating capacity major industrial players estimate for a nuclear new build.

Much of the disagreement about the security implications of nuclear power revolves around whether the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism risks can be managed. Using the most recent research we can show that these risks will become much harder to manage. In fact a new nuclear build would take us into uncharted and very dangerous waters.

For these reasons the UK government should apply the precautionary principle. The Prime Minister’s justification for replacing the UK’s nuclear weapons system is based on a version of this principle: in an uncertain future in which new nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism are likely, the ‘ultimate deterrent’ is justified. Judged against this argument, building more nuclear power plants is self-defeating in the extreme: they would increase the very threats nuclear weapons are intended to deter.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/secure_energy_civil_nuclear_power_security_and_global_warming

Copyright © Oxford Research Group, 2007-2009. Some rights reserved. All content and downloads are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Licence unless stated otherwise.



Download pdf link: http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/secureenergy.pdf

[LAGC]

1. I'm not that concerned with nuclear proliferation.

I mean, even if "Axis of Evil" states like Iran obtain nukes, its not like they would be dumb enough to use them unless they were invaded.

Nuclear proliferation may ultimately be the one true peace-maker in this warmongering world.

As the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

[kristopher]

2. How wonderfully caring of you.

Lack of concern about the real world consequences to their actions seems to be the trademark of most right wing policies.

[LAGC]

4. Last time I checked, France was quite liberal.

And they are quite pro-nuclear as well.

This notion that being left-wing necessarily means being anti-nuke is a tired old canard.

[kristopher]

6. Which is why the French want more renewables (70%+) instead of more nukes (12%)

[LAGC]

8. I'm not going to question those numbers.

A nation like France that already gets 80% of its power from nukes and is a major exporter of energy can probably get away with only building new renewable sources of energy from this point forward, even if it costs consumers a little bit more on their power bills. They were smart enough to abandon coal a long time ago in favor of nuclear, which we should have done a long time ago.

But here in America where we have many nuclear reactors approaching the end of their life-cycles, they must be replaced with reliable mass-energy sources. I'd hate to see more coal and natural gas plants fill the gap, wouldn't you? I mean, we're already one of the worst carbon contributors to climate change as it is.

[fascisthunter]

9. same attitude prevalent amongst pro-gun proliferators

"..who believe a civil society is a well armed society."

[LAGC]

11. Well, if you ever visit the Guns forum, you will find that I am quite pro-gun as well.

So I guess it just goes with the territory.

I mean, using that analogy, how many millions of more guns have flooded American streets in the last 10 years?

Yet the violent crime rate has been declining steadily...

Imagine that. Criminals are more afraid of armed victims than they are of the police.

[fascisthunter]

12. I Live in a City... I know what guns do

and your claim is NRA BS... guns are not making us safer and they never will.

[LAGC]

13. I understand and sympathize with your urban concerns.

Indeed, it seems that the "great divide" in the gun control debate any more isn't so much Democrat vs. Republican as much as it is Urban vs. Rural areas.

I know big cities have unique crime problems that really manifest themselves wherever large populations are concentrated, and it seems like a reasonable solution to just wish that there were no guns available for all the gang-bangers and hoodlums and robbers. But the criminals don't care about anti-gun laws, all it does is disarm law-abiding citizens so they can't defend themselves from attack. Really, the crime problem is more economic than anything. If people had access to good paying jobs and could make an honest living working through the system, crime wouldn't be so attractive an option.

Besides, the "genie" is already out of the bottle so to speak, there's no way to get rid of all the guns in America out there already. It would literally take decades and the criminals wouldn't turn them in, so it would be a long terror of armed thugs victimizing everyone else while the cops slowly confiscated them. And even if we succeeded in getting rid of all guns, criminals would just resort to other weapons. Confrontations that can now be defended by even a physically weak person with a gun would become simple contests of strength. The predators out there would prey on everyone weaker and no one would be able to stop it.

Sometimes laws have unintended consequences.

[fascisthunter]

14. I hear Ya.... but I would Like this Country to Move Away from Guns

I'm afraid the "need" for them is just perpetuating a self-fulfilled prophecy of insecurity(Genie out of the Bottle). I don't want to get rid of all guns, I just want man to try to live without them as much as possible.

I appreciated your reply...

[kristopher]

3. "Finally, we show that nuclear power is not needed. ..."

In spite of what the nuclear industry claims.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/secureenergy.pdf

[LAGC]

5. That might actually work for the U.K.

They have a huge potential for wave/tidal power generation, being a coastal island nation and all. And lots of steady wind for their off-shore wind farms. Since its so small of a nation geographically, presumably upgrading their transmission line infrastructure wouldn't be as much of a chore. I just wonder what effect a project on such a massive scale would have on the sea-life/habitat?

Of course, America is a whole different ballgame.

[MadHound]

10. Yes it is,

America is the Saudi Arabia of wind power. A 1991 DOE study of wind resources in this country found that we could power our entire country with the wind derived in three states, N. Dakota, Kansas and Texas. And remember, that is using 1991 wind tech, which has advanced considerably since then.

America is a whole different ballgame, a great big one that can power our entire country.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Nuclear power as a main source of energy takes too long, it's too dangerous and it's too expensive.

Solar, wind, tidal and geothermal combined with smart grids are the way to go.

Humanity must change its' relationship with our only known home in the universe if we're to survive as a viable species.

Thanks for the thread, kristopher.