2. I don’t want to make too much of this. I just think that the argument, as you put it, is one of absolutes where shades of grey are more appropriate. Given the latter, things become much more debatable.

I’m not trying to be unpleasant, Justin, I’m just slightly radioactive

xD.

Dave Cole’s latest blog post… China, the unexpected and the impossible

2. I didn’t realise I had made the statement in an absolute fashion. Where did I say ‘all’ commitments are unacceptable? I was talking specifically about nuclear waste. I find the commitments we demand about nuclear waste unacceptable. Where does the rest of it come into it? Are you implying that I’m against wind farms because they ask a commitment from future generations? The cure for cancer? Procreation?

2. You are opposed to everything. You said that “Burying nuclear waste demands commitments – financial and moral – from future societies and governments”. I think that just about any area of public policy does the same. As you find this unacceptable, you’re opposed to everything. I’m trying to point out a hole in the logic; you can’t make that statement in an absolute fashion. It would be more meaningful to say that some future commitments are unacceptable.

3. The point stands; it’s there and it needs to be dealt with.

4. By about 10% by volume (though I accept that it would be mostly HLW).

xD.

Dave Cole’s latest blog post… China, the unexpected and the impossible

2. What, everything? I’m for a lot of things: Political accountability, electoral reform, civil liberties, Iraqi interpreters, pork scratchings, free speech, organ donation, public engagement, clean renewable energy, lager, human rights, honesty, public inquiries into the Iraq war and 7/7, freedom of information, arms control…

However, the alternative – combustion of fossil fuels – isn’t particularly attractive.

I completely agree but there is this and the new research showing that if only the UK sticks to its renewables commitments and CO2 emmission reduction targets we won’t need any new power station of any flavour until at least 2020.

3. CoRWM felt that geological storage was the best option

I think ‘least worst’ is the better way to describe it, Dave. Or ‘wishful thinking’. The fact is that we lack the expertise to deal with the waste in any satisfactory manner.

A new generation of nuclear power stations would not change the problem.

Yes it would, it would make it worse, wouldn’t it? We end up with more waste to deal with. We’d need to dig more holes and cross more fingers.

The first, and biggest, is the conflation of nuclear weaponry with nuclear power.

The second is your opposition to everything. Perhaps that’s a little strong? Perhaps not.

“Burying nuclear waste demands commitments – financial and moral – from future societies and governments.”

Everything does, and in ways we cannot predict; think, for instance, of the effects of Margaret Thatcher’s economic reforms of the 1980s on Britain, or even that the A46 follows the route of the (Roman) Fosse Way. Before you say anything, I know that these are recent when compared with the half-lives of some of the more unpleasant isotopes produced by nuclear fission. However, the alternative – combustion of fossil fuels – isn’t particularly attractive.

Thirdly, the attitude of some states towards their obligations in the past is poor. The Marshall Islands are one example; the decaying sarcophagus at Chernobyl is another. That argument can be extended to almost any area of human activity. In any case, nuclear waste – and I concede much of it is not properly stored – is an existing problem. Whether or not we build new nuclear plants, we have to deal with it; as you’re probably aware, CoRWM felt that geological storage was the best option. A new generation of nuclear power stations would not change the problem.

xD.

xD.

Dave Cole’s latest blog post… China, the unexpected and the impossible