The Environmental Impact of No Nuclear Station at Dungeness

The government’s decision that there will be no nuclear power station at Dungeness has been met with almost universal dismay. Local Labour and Conservative members are united in disbelief at Ed Miliband’s announcement that the site would not be considered on environmental grounds. Worries about possible future sea level rises and erosion were cited as major dangers to the site.

It is easy to say that building a nuclear power station would help stem this rise in sea levels but this is too simple. The CO2 chucked out by other countries means saying that a new nuclear station at Dungeness would help the cause of global warming is like saying an aspirin would help with the pain of a traumatic amputation.

Just getting statistics on carbon emissions and global warming that everyone agrees on is a challenge, let alone interpreting them. From Under the Stone firmly believes the idea that man-made global warming is reality, until a better argued opposition comes along. However, the threat of conspiracy and shadowy interests hinders understanding almost as much as the fact that most commentators (including this one) are most definitely not scientists.

The Guardian’s Data Blog had a good stab at giving the people the numbers and letting us do the crunching, although the prominent Shell advert raised eyebrows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/oct/22/carbon-emissions-data-country-world).

However, regardless of the global dilemmas, negative environmental effects of not building the power station may be felt long before the sea rises and we are all enjoying swimming off Rye.

With no power station, one of the legs of the opposition to the expansion of London Ashford Airport is kicked away (please see press releases at http://www.kentnet.org.uk/laag/press_releases.htm). With no nuclear reactors for errant 737s to plough into, the way is quite literally cleared for planes to start chucking CO2 all over the Marsh, whining above barbeques and hoovering up rare bird species. The need to secure jobs will now be more pressing, which may also sway decision makers over the airport expansion.

Thinking of the present rather than the future, the two firms involved in the A and B sites (Magnox energy and British Electricity, owned by EDF based just over the channel in France) both in some part fund the excellent Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Organiser of many wildlife spotting jaunts and countryside maintenance days, the RMCP is perhaps the most visible and constant, though certainly not only, beneficiary of funding from the companies running the A and B sites.

While this may well be greenwash, propaganda and mere peanuts to the companies concerned, one wonders what or who will step in to make up the shortfall in these community projects should these companies leave the area. One would hope local business, though with the power stations removed as a major employer, surely businesses will suffer.

As already stated, if we accept man-made global warming as real then action needs to be taken on a global scale and none of Dungeness A, B or proposed C will save the world. Perhaps the harsh reality is that the government is fairly certain that by the end of this century the Marsh will in fact be under several feet of water, at which point concerns about jobs and rare bird nesting habitats might well be the least of our worries.

Government report on Dungeness at https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/nuclear/hra/other/dungeness/