The Nuclear Debate
Chris Attkins writes in response to the question raised in last week's Voice Mail regarding the cost effectiveness of nuclear power.
Written by Chris Attkins
Thursday, 4 September 2008
1 view 
0 comments
In response to a request in last week’s Arran Voice, I will attempt to elaborate on my assertion in Edition 072 that nuclear power is cost efficient.
Let me say at the outset that I am not pro-nuclear. Like many other people I fear an accident that could result in numerous fatalities and many more damaged lives due to exposure to radiation. The disaster at Chernobyl may have happened at a great distance, but its effects were all too plain, even in Scotland. The late ‘Captain George’ — Glasgow’s famous ‘Eye in the Sky’ — with whom I flew many times for the purposes of filming shots of the city and clients’ premises, told me about an aerial survey he conducted following that incident. “There are places so radioactive that I would not land my helicopter there,” he confided at the time. Apparently a Geiger counter trailed by the helicopter “went off the scale” as he trailed it over parts of the East End of Glasgow (where we had our studios!).
What worries me most is that we never heard any more about this. What action was taken to remove radioactive fallout? Silence or denial from those in authority in the face of a real problem is always alarming.
And what explains the extraordinary number of people with cancer on Arran?
Not long after Chernobyl we heard about nuclear warheads being transported back and forth to Faslane to maintain the Trident fleet of submarines. Sure enough, we filmed them being taken by ancient army trucks (with ‘dodgy brakes’* and no MOTs) over the Kingston Bridge during the rush hour! We were assured that this operation was completely safe, yet our research led us to nuclear experts in the US who claimed that while a nuclear detonation was extremely unlikely as a result of a traffic collision, the odds were far less favourable for radiation rendering the location of an accident unfit for habitation.
A subsequent staged ‘incident’ on the Holy Loch envisaged a light aircraft crashing into a nuclear submarine in dock. Incredibly, at the press conference prior to this training event we were told there would be nothing to see — and as a result the mainstream media stayed away. What we witnessed was a single person supposedly injured by the crash being whisked off to hospital by ambulance. “See, no problem!” read the smug press release at the time. Meanwhile in Russia, the authorities staged a similar scenario and evacuated a whole city. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Anyway, back to economics. The fact is that until more of us get behind alternative energy, we face the choice of power cuts, or a potentially disastrous blend of nuclear and (temporary) fossil-fuelled electricity generation. The capital cost of building nuclear power stations is huge, but those already operating, such as Hunterston B on Arran’s doorstep, actually produce really cheap electricity, even allowing for waste disposal (the small quantity of highly radioactive spent fuel is ground to a powder and mixed with molten glass that is poured into reinforced stainless steel containers), which according to British Energy accounts for 10% of the total cost of nuclear electricity (source: Radioactive Waste — the past, present and future, under control).
I invited Peter Inglis, British Energy’s specialist in nuclear and energy industry public affairs to contribute to this article and am disappointed not to have had a response. Perhaps the figures are optimistic; I reported them as I found them — in the hope that the good people running Hunterston continue to provide us with affordable energy, while protecting us from the potential harm it can do.
*Quoted by one of the drivers of the 40-year-old vehicles.
Thursday, 4 September 2008
1 view 0 commentsIn response to a request in last week’s Arran Voice, I will attempt to elaborate on my assertion in Edition 072 that nuclear power is cost efficient.
Let me say at the outset that I am not pro-nuclear. Like many other people I fear an accident that could result in numerous fatalities and many more damaged lives due to exposure to radiation. The disaster at Chernobyl may have happened at a great distance, but its effects were all too plain, even in Scotland. The late ‘Captain George’ — Glasgow’s famous ‘Eye in the Sky’ — with whom I flew many times for the purposes of filming shots of the city and clients’ premises, told me about an aerial survey he conducted following that incident. “There are places so radioactive that I would not land my helicopter there,” he confided at the time. Apparently a Geiger counter trailed by the helicopter “went off the scale” as he trailed it over parts of the East End of Glasgow (where we had our studios!).
What worries me most is that we never heard any more about this. What action was taken to remove radioactive fallout? Silence or denial from those in authority in the face of a real problem is always alarming.
And what explains the extraordinary number of people with cancer on Arran?
Not long after Chernobyl we heard about nuclear warheads being transported back and forth to Faslane to maintain the Trident fleet of submarines. Sure enough, we filmed them being taken by ancient army trucks (with ‘dodgy brakes’* and no MOTs) over the Kingston Bridge during the rush hour! We were assured that this operation was completely safe, yet our research led us to nuclear experts in the US who claimed that while a nuclear detonation was extremely unlikely as a result of a traffic collision, the odds were far less favourable for radiation rendering the location of an accident unfit for habitation.
A subsequent staged ‘incident’ on the Holy Loch envisaged a light aircraft crashing into a nuclear submarine in dock. Incredibly, at the press conference prior to this training event we were told there would be nothing to see — and as a result the mainstream media stayed away. What we witnessed was a single person supposedly injured by the crash being whisked off to hospital by ambulance. “See, no problem!” read the smug press release at the time. Meanwhile in Russia, the authorities staged a similar scenario and evacuated a whole city. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Anyway, back to economics. The fact is that until more of us get behind alternative energy, we face the choice of power cuts, or a potentially disastrous blend of nuclear and (temporary) fossil-fuelled electricity generation. The capital cost of building nuclear power stations is huge, but those already operating, such as Hunterston B on Arran’s doorstep, actually produce really cheap electricity, even allowing for waste disposal (the small quantity of highly radioactive spent fuel is ground to a powder and mixed with molten glass that is poured into reinforced stainless steel containers), which according to British Energy accounts for 10% of the total cost of nuclear electricity (source: Radioactive Waste — the past, present and future, under control).
I invited Peter Inglis, British Energy’s specialist in nuclear and energy industry public affairs to contribute to this article and am disappointed not to have had a response. Perhaps the figures are optimistic; I reported them as I found them — in the hope that the good people running Hunterston continue to provide us with affordable energy, while protecting us from the potential harm it can do.
*Quoted by one of the drivers of the 40-year-old vehicles.
To add your own comments, you must be a registered member of The Arran Voice.
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
LOG-IN or Register FREE!
Anna Kucharska has commented on
Contact us
About Us
Subscriptions
Advertising
Terms & Conditions
Accessibility
Stats
Comments on This Article
There are currently no comments on this article — why not be the first?