Anti-nuclear
Encyclopedia : A : AN : ANT : Anti-nuclear
The anti-nuclear movement holds that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and thus ought to be "replaced with safe and affordable renewable energy." [link]
Several factors make nuclear power a prime target for opposition. The coming of environmental awareness meant that the existence of any impacts a technology might have made it open to attack. Nuclear power was particularly vulnerable because it was not yet entrenched, as well as being associated with nuclear weapons both technologically and conceptually, and this became a more important negative factor in the 1970s after the signing of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Finally, nuclear power has always been a technology which necessarily depends on experts and has thus become categorised as an alien technology. The public has little knowledge of the real facts on nuclear power
The early opposition to nuclear power was almost entirely on environmental grounds: thermal pollution, reactor accidents, release of radiation during shipments, radioactive waste disposal. The environmental movement had made such concerns socially legitimate, whereas opposition on issues such as proliferation of nuclear weapons did not invoke the same social resonance.
Some observers claimed to see a considerable overlap between opponents of nuclear power and supporters of unilateral disarmament during the Cold War. Others link the anti-nuclear movement to currents within the environmentalist movement who want the West (particularly the U.S.) to stop using so much energy and get back to simpler things.
Critics of unilateral disarmament felt that the practice would not have the heralded effect but would encourage Soviet aggression (abroad) and facilitate repression internally.
Accidents
Reactor accidents, although rare, are often cited by anti-nuclear groups as evidence of the inherent danger of nuclear power. Most commonly cited are the fire at Windscale in the 1950's, where a British aircooled 'pile', used to produce plutonium for the military, caught fire. There has also been the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, which lead to some radioactive release and has rendered the unit inoperable, and the steam explosion at Chernobyl, which resulted in massive amounts of radio-isotopes being released into the environment. To counter these claims, the Western nuclear industry typically cites the low rate of accidents worldwide, and that the Chernobyl accident occurred at a Soviet-designed station which does not meet Western safety standards.Monetary cost of nuclear power
Many anti-nuclear activists consider nuclear power to be much more costly than other 'greener' alternatives, such as co-generation, wind power or solar power. Typically cited are the huge costs of constructing a nuclear plant (see Darlington Nuclear Generating Station), and the as of yet undetermined costs of storing or disposing of high-level nuclear waste. These analyses are typically refuted by the nuclear industry, who release their own data to the contrary, leading to a bewildering back-and-forth conflict between biased experts on either side. [link][link]As a result, to the public it is not clear whether renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear.See also
- Nuclear power phase-out
- Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
- Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC)
- Nuclear-Free Future Award
- Earthlife Africa
- Koeberg Alert
External links
- [Yggdrasil Institute] Technical reports and statistics
- [La France Nucleaire] Nuclear France: Materials and Sites (online book in English and French)
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.