Skip to main content

To: Lancaster City Council

New Nuclear In Lancaster to Save the Climate? No To New Nuclear in Climate Emergency Plan

“In response to the climate emergency Lancaster City Council should embrace the local energy revolution, not old, dangerous, centralised, redundant nuclear technology.” Include the N3 clause in Climate Emergency planning: No New Nuclear.

Why is this important?

People are watching with increasing frustration not to mention growing horror as climate emergency resolutions are adopted by councils without any clause or caveat at all that new nuclear should not be an option. The reasons why new nuclear should not be on the table or anywhere near it are outlined in a new report by the Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy.

The development of a third nuclear power station at Heysham would not be an appropriate response to the City Council’s climate emergency declaration. Firstly a new station would take too long to build; secondly a new station would not be low carbon; thirdly a new station would be more expensive than alternatives and would detract from the real solutions to the climate emergency, namely a comprehensive energy efficiency programme and the development of renewable energy.

Finally, all nuclear power stations are uniquely dangerous, so dangerous to all life on planet earth that no insurance company will underwrite them - the public pays time and again. This danger is exacerbated by climate change.

Nuclear power stations are not resilient to climate change. Nuclear power plants function inefficiently or are forced to close during droughts and heatwaves. And many nuclear plants are located along coastlines. As seas rise, coastal nuclear power plants are at-risk from being flooded making them inoperable. Their radioactive waste inventories, if not moved in time, could be in danger of leaking into the oceans. Nuclear power involves major risks, including: a higher probability of serious accidents; a mounting and unsolved radioactive waste problem; and increased nuclear proliferation. Renewable energy risks none of these. Why replace one risk – climate change – with another? Namely nuclear accidents and radioactive wastes.

We ask Lancaster City Council to resist the vested interests pushing for new nuclear to be 'part of the mix' . This push is nonsensical and dangerous. The energy revolution must not include nuclear if Lancaster City Council is truly serious about its commitment to protect the climate and the planet.

The full report from Edinburgh Energy and Environment Consultancy includes detailed analysis of why nuclear is not 'needed' and can be read here:

How it will be delivered

Copies of the report and petition have been delivered. We almost achieved the No New Nuclear clause at Lancaster City Council with council stating that renewables are the way forward. However, nuclear is still on the table. This is too important to let go so we are keeping this petition open. Folk are facing down the climate wolf at the door while the pack of nuclear wolves are climbing in through the back window.

Heysham Nuclear Power Station, Heysham, Morecambe

Maps © Stamen; Data © OSM and contributors, ODbL




2019-09-08 11:20:57 +0100

100 signatures reached

2019-09-06 13:19:17 +0100

The petition only allows for people in the UK to sign BUT..... Folk can still drop a line to Lancaster City Council if they are outside the UK. The contact is Deborah Chambers at Democratic Services Lancaster City Council. Just send an email saying that you live outside the UK but that you fully support the petition "New Nuclear in Lancaster to Save the Climate? No To New Nuclear in Climate Emergency Plan" The uranium for new reactors would not be sourced from the UK...even the 'protected' Grand Canyon has been eyed up for uranium mining. Email : [email protected].

2019-09-06 11:21:30 +0100

50 signatures reached

2019-09-06 09:55:33 +0100

25 signatures reached

2019-09-06 00:14:39 +0100

10 signatures reached