Nuclear power? No point, says Green candidate
TTKN Staff | Politics | May 31st, 2009 | No Comments »
Of course there’s the increasingly-expensive problem of waste; “after half a century we still don’t know what to do with the radioactive waste, which we’ll be dealing with for thousands of years,” says Peter. But rather than risk getting bogged-down in arguments about whether nuclear is safe or not, he simply gets right down to the economics of the matter.
Peter explains: “Nuclear provides about four per cent of our energy. We could save several times that much just by improving energy-efficiency in homes and businesses. Reducing demand would cut people’s fuel bills, and incidentally create tens of thousands of extra jobs”.
The article explains that nuclear energy would not reduce emissions fast enough, but that wind, wave and solar energy would – and would also create new jobs “starting right now,” not in ten or fifteen years’ time after building new nuclear power stations. And, he says, renewables would generate not only clean, safe electricity, but more new jobs than could be created by Gordon Brown’s nuclear dream: “Several times as many jobs per megawatt from clean renewables,” he says.
The Green Party’s 2009 Euro-election manifesto, titled “It’s the economy, stupid,” spells out policies that the Greens say would create over a million UK jobs within 2-3 years, including more than 100,000 in the North West – many of them in the renewable energy and energy-conservation industries.
Related News:
- Green MEP candidate to visit “Age of Stupid” windfarm
- GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and EnergyLab to Help Italy Pursue Next Generation of Safe Nuclear Power Plants for Near-Zero-Carbon Electricity
- Prime Minister welcomes locations for new nuclear power stations
- Van Jones – Barack Obama’s Green Adviser Resigns
- Salma Yaqoob says “Go Green at the Euro Elections”
Have Your Say!