Nuclear power is it clear?

amenity · Nuclear power is it clear?

This dropped into my mail box thought there might be someone who would like to see.

The campaign:

CORRECTING MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND

RAISING AWARENESS OF A MAJOR ALTERNATIVE

Thanks to the magic of Google Alerts, it is now possible to know that, in

newspapers, magazines and blogs around the world, large numbers of

articles, reports and comments are appearing that present nuclear power

in a favourable light and gloss over its many problems (see

www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm). If you would like to help

with an easy-to-do online campaign to correct some of the misleading

information that is being spread, and to raise awareness of a major

alternative to nuclear power, please go to

www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm

amenity

From the marinet web site
From the East Anglian Daily Times of 13th March 2007 comes this story by David Green entitled: 'Flood warning for nuclear sites'.

view of Sizewell Reactor
EAST Anglia's two nuclear sites will be a serious future flood risk and are unsuitable for new power stations, according to a study published yesterday. The study, by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University, suggested that the cost of defending the sites from significant sea level rises and storm surges would make them "economically unsustainable." It is the second report this year to warn of a nuclear flood risk. The Met Office forecast last month that North Sea surge levels at Sizewell could rise by 1.7 metres by the end of the century.

The new study, commissioned by the Greenpeace environment group, focussed on four existing nuclear sites - Sizewell, Bradwell, Dungeness in Kent and Hinkley Point in Somerset - considered to be the likely locations for new nuclear power stations. The four sites are, like all the UK's nuclear power stations, located on the coast because of the need for both an isolated position and a plentiful supply of cooling water. However, their location also puts them at a very real risk of flooding, according to the latest report.

Flooding of the area around Bradwell could, under one scenario examined, become not only more likely but "potentially be more severe". In another scenario the Essex site could become an island in the long-term, the report said, as the surrounding area became inundated with floodwaters. The report said the impacts at Sizewell were less clear. The coastline was considered to be vulnerable to change in the long term, with extensive coastline retreat.

This possibility would have high significance for the siting of any new nuclear reactor. With extreme sea level rise "there would be significant erosion and flooding across the region". Dr Loraine McFadden from Middlesex Flood Hazard Research Centre said: "Having undertaken this review of existing data, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the most sensible approach would be to reject all nuclear new-build within the dynamic coastal environment."

Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, Nathan Argent, said: "This report is yet another nail in the coffin for Blair's deluded nuclear policy. "With the catastrophic effect that sea level rise will wreak upon nuclear sites - not least economically - it now looks more likely that the industry faces a burial at sea. There's a real risk that any financial investment in new nuclear plants will sink without trace."

A British Energy spokesman said the company understood the importance of climate change, which is why it asked the Met Office, as leading experts in the field, to make a detailed assessment of environmental change and the possible impact on sites. He added: "The study suggested that although considerable rises in sea level are predicted by the end of the century, even in the most severe scenario a mix of measures including coastal defences, flood protection and plant design would ensure our sites are well-protected from the effects of sea level rises. British Energy is using proven techniques to manage the potential risk to all of our sites from tidal rises and storm surges, and will continue to do so when planning ahead to protect our existing infrastructure as well as any potential new nuclear build."