- This event has passed.
27 April @ 12:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Yorkshire Transport from £5 return
Leeds – 10am Outside Wetherspoons, North Concourse, Leeds City Station – Book a ticket
Bradford – 10.25am Outside the Bradford Hotel – Hall Ings – Book a ticket
Skipton – 11am Outside Tesco, Craven Rd – Book a Ticket
Stop New Nuclear in its tracks. Show the Government and the nuclear industry that we don’t want more waste, more risk and more lies in our communities. We can create all the energy we need from sustainable and safe renewable resources.
People dressed as Nuclear Waste barrels will be descending on Springfields on April 27th 2019 in a protest designed to symbolise Nuclear Waste returning to it’s place of birth with each barrel representing a 100,000 yrs of radioactive waste.
Assemble 12pm Windmill Pub Car-park
We will have an exhibition, food from Veggies Catering, speakers, a surround of Springfields and a live-link with a uranium-impacted community.
WHY IS UK GOV PURSUING THE NEW NUCLEAR PROJECT?
Against all environmental and economic sense the Government has now agreed contracts for offshore wind power to be delivered at half the price they locked us into for electricity from Hinkley C.
Just Hinkley C alone will see a more than doubling of the wholesale market cost of electricity and that’s without the rest of their planned program – given the levels of fuel poverty already in Britain nuclear electricity will make electricity so eye-wateringly expensive many of us won’t be able to afford to have it! Meanwhile renewables are just getting cheaper and cheaper.. with on-shore wind being the cheapest!
The only willing source of investment beyond the British taxpayer/billpayers is now the Chinese State – who are seeking access to our grid and opportunities to expand their own nuclear program.
THE PROBLEMS OF NUCLEAR POWER
The proposed Hinkley C would take at least 10 years to build. Thereby missing the government/industry created ‘energy gap’ that new nuclear was supposed to plug. They are now falling back on fracking, another damaging extreme energy source, to fulfil projected energy needs that are rapidly being supplied by renewable sources.
If some of the subsidies of the nuclear industry were directed to renewables and efficiency measures we could be even further along this path.
Globally, the mining of uranium leaves vast amounts of radioactive tailings and necessitates the trashing of land, the poisoning of water and human rights abuses. In addition, all this uranium has to be transported and processed using fossil fuels.
Furthermore, a carbon footprint is usually calculated with a “cradle to grave” analysis, but with nuclear power there is, as yet, no grave. There is no safe solution for nuclear waste. 10,000 generations will have to deal with the highly toxic waste of 3 generations.
Britain has accumulated half a million cubic metres of highly radioactive waste from its nuclear reactors: enough to fill five Albert Halls.
This is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. With new build, this waste problem is predicted to both increase in its level of toxicity and, therefore, costs and dangers to the public
It is also absurd to think that nuclear power will save us from climate change when all our reactors are already prone to coastal flooding, and this danger will increase, as sea levels rise. New reactors such as Sizewell C are proposed at sea level, without any consideration of long term sea level changes.
The government has said that there will be no subsidies for the new nuclear build. But no nuclear facility has ever been built, run or insured without huge amounts of tax-payers’ money and rising domestic bills.
The reality is that EDF is already €44 billion in debt to the French government Flamanville (EDF’s current new build in France) has already doubled its cost and time projections.
As for jobs, EDF has a poor track record. A third of Flamanville’s workforce are migrant laborers. EDF has been accused by the French unions of instigating a form of modern slavery on their workers.
Nuclear energy provides only a sixth of the UK’s electricity. We could save this much energy by insulating all our homes. Government subsidies to new nuclear build threaten to drain money away from genuinely renewable energy projects that could provide jobs. In Germany, the renewable energy industry employs 344,000 people and is growing. This is already 10 times more than the entire UK nuclear industry workforce.
So, given all these disadvantages, why does the British government still insist on nuclear power?
Germany, Switzerland and Italy, have now halted their nuclear power programmes. The inference then drawn from the UK’s policy is that nuclear power has far more to do with politics than with creating electricity.
The UK sits on the Security Council of the UN. This dominant position is maintained by the fact that the UK is an established nuclear power. Nuclear power was military in its inception and it continues to serve the war machine. The production of electricity for civil use is a smoke screen for its true purpose: the production of plutonium and other nuclear materials used in weapon systems.
There is increasing evidence that modified uranium that could only have been produced in nuclear power stations is surfacing in the aftermath of NATO’s wars in Iraq, the Balkans, and Afghanistan,
This poisons vast amounts of land and civilians for generations and also our own soldiers. The latest Anglo-French military agreement involves developing nuclear weapons at Aldermaston.