Fourth generation nuclear plants are far from a cure-all

We quite agree with George Monbiot's assessment of the nuclear industry's shortcomings, but even were the secrecy, corruption and commercially motivated safety shortcuts to magically disappear, the fundamental problems with the technology remain (The nuclear industry stinks. But that is not a reason to ditch nuclear power, 5 July).

George dismisses safety fears over waste stores as "inexplicable" on the basis that nuclear fuels originate from mined rocks - but these ores frequently contain 1% or less uranium, surrounded by other minerals.. While some have higher concentrations, few come anywhere near to the proportion of radioactive compounds to be found in a waste drum. Would one similarly dismiss the risk of poisoning from high concentrations of arsenic merely because it can also be mined from natural deposits? Building waste stores that will have to last many times longer than the current timespan of human civilisation is, on any quantification of risk, a fraught task.

The fourth-generation nuclear plants of which George speaks so highly are far from a cure-all. While better, they will still produce waste that remains radioactive for centuries, can still allow plutonium to be diverted for weapon production and, most crucially of all, do not yet exist and are unlikely to be built on a commercial scale for decades. Such points have little to do with the decision facing Britain right now, with the government proposing new reactors firmly based on current technologies and their long-lived waste.

Were our opposition to nuclear power based merely on the murkiness of the industry, we might agree with George. Sadly, unless the government can be diverted from its course, it will be boosting a technology that diverts investment from renewables and encourages more countries to acquire the materials and expertise necessary for a nuclear weapons programme.
(By Kate Hudson - Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)

• What I never understand about George Monbiot's position on nuclear power is why he doesn't devote as much effort to arguing for carbon rationing or Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).

TEQs are a way of using the market to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Every adult is given an equal free entitlement of TEQs units each week. Other energy users (government, industry etc) bid for their units at a weekly auction. If you use less than your entitlement, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which rises and falls in line with demand. When you buy energy, units corresponding to the amount of energy you have bought are deducted from your TEQs account, in addition to your money payment. The redistribution from rich to poor that TEQs would entail surely fits better with Monbiot's general philosophy than support for the nuclear industry.

(By Alexis Rowell - Director, Cutting the Carbon)

(The Guardian, 11/07/2011)