Mark Andrews’ interesting article on the direction of
future UK energy policy (“Britain's nuclear power puzzle: How do we stop the
lights going out?,” Shropshire Star, 22 January; https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/features/2019/01/22/how-do-we-stop-the-lights-going-out/) included several inaccurate assertions, including two very important errors
by local MP Owen Patterson.
The article asserts that
with Japanese power generator Hitachi suspending (read cancelling) building
work on a giant nuclear reactor at Wylfa power station in Anglesey, “it has
blown a major hole in the Government's energy strategy.”
This is misleading, as
is the assertion that “last year, nuclear power provided just under a fifth of
Britain's energy needs.” This conflates energy with electricity.
Nuclear provides around
20% of electricity supply, which is only 7% of total energy (including for
heat, transport etc). Wylfa would have provided 2% of national energy demand,
hardly a big hole as electricity demand has dropped every year for a decade.
The article also reports
that world's first nuclear power station opened at Calder Hall, near Sellafield
in Cumbria, in 1956. This nuclear plant was opened that year, by a young HM
Queen Elizabeth, but it was not a power plant, but a plutonium production
factory for nuclear explosive materials for atomic warheads, with very
expensive electricity generated as a spin off.
In fact it was clearly stated at the time of the plant’s opening, in a
remarkable little book entitled Calder Hall: The Story of Britain’s First
Atomic Power Station, written by Kenneth Jay, and published by the
Government’s Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell to mark Calder’s
commissioning in October 1956. Mr Jay wrote:
“Major plants built for military purposes such as Calder Hall are being
used as prototypes for civil plants . . . the plant has been designed as a
dual-purpose plant to produce plutonium for military purposes as well as
electric power . . . it would be wrong to pretend that the civil programme has
not benefitted from, and is not to some extent dependent upon, the military
programme."
Owen Paterson is right
to call for a rethink of energy policy, moving away from the giant power plants
of the past But his choice of gas-fired plants using fracked natural shale gas
from UK wells, and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)is highly misguided,
especially worrying as he isa former Environment Secretary in the
Cabinet.
Mr Patterson is reported
as claiming “small nuclear plants have been running successfully around the UK
for the past 30 years, with nine working on and off without incident.” This is
completely untrue. There have been no SMRs operating in the UK ever. (although
small reactors are used in nuclear submarines for propulsion).
To learn more about the UK SME r research programme, your readers may
access a 70 page critical analysis ( including dangerous terrorist
risks) I presented the European Nuclear Energy forum in Bratislava in Slovakia
in June last year, on behalf of the Brussels-based Nuclear Transparency Watch
Group at this web site URL: http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nuclear-SMR-promoters-must-face-up-to-some-inconvenient-truths.pdf
Mr Patterson also
asserts "I'm very much in favour of exploring the possibility of shale gas
[which is] far cleaner than all the old fossil-fuel power stations."
It is true fracked
gas is cleaner in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal,
but there are still ‘fugitive emissions ‘ of shale gas, which is a much
more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide from coal combustion.
But fracking has both health hazards and under-reported radiation
risks, both overlooked by Mr Patterson
A study published by
independent academic researchers at the University of Missouri at the
end of 2013 found greater hormone- disrupting (so-called
‘gender-bender’ chemicals) properties in water located near fracking than
in areas without drilling.
Endocrine disruptors interfere with the body’s endocrine system, which
controls numerous body functions with hormones such as the female hormone
estrogen and the male hormone androgen. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, such as those studied in the MU research, has been linked by other
research to cancer, birth defects and infertility. (for full study see: http://medicine.missouri.edu/news/0214.php)
Other US-based scientists at Yale University have
found 55 fracking pollutants linked to cancer, including 20 associated with
leukaemia or lymphoma. “These findings support the hypothesis that exposure to
unconventional oil and gas development could increase the risk of leukaemia,”
the recent study concludes.
The pollutants linked to leukaemia include benzene,
cadmium, formaldehyde and several toxic types of hydrocarbons. More than 80 %
of the 1,177 water pollutants and 143 air pollutants from the US fracking
industry couldn’t be assessed for cancer risk because of a lack of data, the
paper, published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, states.
Moreover, research
published in the US by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health that
found levels of radon in Pennsylvania homes – where 42% of readings surpass
what the US government considers safe – have been on the rise since 2004,
around the time that the fracking industry began drilling natural gas wells in
the state. (‘Increased Levels of Radon in Pennsylvania Homes Correspond
to Onset of Fracking’, April
9, 2015; www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/increased-levels-of-radon-in-pennsylvania-homes-correspond-to-onset-of-fracking.html)
In
the UK, the heath watchdog, Public Health England, warned in a report
published over five years ago “If the natural gas delivery point were to be
close to the extraction point with a short transit time, radon present in the
natural gas would have little time to decay … there is therefore the potential
for radon gas to be present in natural gas extracted from UK shale.” (‘Shale
gas extraction: review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to
chemical and radioactive pollutants,’ 30 October 2013; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shale-gas-extraction-review-of-the-potential-public-health-impacts-of-exposures-to-chemical-and-radioactive-pollutants-draft-for-comment))
This would mean families in kitchens
across the land could be under threat of radiation poisoning if gas hobs and
ovens are used.
No comments:
Post a Comment