GET ACTIVE
Watch Coalfinger
Watch our 007 spoof Coalfinger and share it with your friends to spread the word about the menace of coal.
What is the government hiding about nuclear power?
Posted by tracy on 7 September 2007.
As a matter of law the government must keep an open mind on new nuclear power until after the "fullest public consultation." It claims that it "will consider carefully the responses we get and this will enable us to take a decision on nuclear power later in the year".
One day. One thousand people. That is what the government considers full public consultation on the fate of the country and the survival of the planet.
In 2006 the government initiated an Energy Review to determine how the UK will cut greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs - the issue of whether or not the UK should build new nuclear power stations was high up the agenda. However, the way in which the government then proceeded to consult on nuclear power drew heavy criticism. It looked as though the government had already made up its mind on the issue of nuclear power and the consultation was mere window dressing. It was light-weight and full of misleading information.
Fundamentally the process was not the "fullest public consultation" that the government had promised to conduct before giving the go-ahead on new nuclear power. So we took the government to the High Court to challenge the legality of the of the their conclusion - that nuclear power had a "role to play" in the UK's future energy supply.
In February, Mr Justice Sullivan found in favour of Greenpeace and ruled that the government's pro-nuclear decision was "unlawful." In his judgment he described the consultation as "seriously flawed" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient and "misleading" information had been made available by the government to those consulted which didn't allow them to make an "intelligent response".
So the government was forced to re-consult comprehensively on nuclear power prior to making decisions to allow or support new build. As a matter of law the government must keep an open mind on new nuclear power until after the "fullest public consultation".
Tomorrow, just over 1,000 selected members of the public will be asked their view on nuclear power. But this is clearly a sham, the government has already made up its mind.
In May on BBC's Politics Show, Alistair Darling said, "I believe that nuclear ought to be part of the mix." In July, Gordon Brown told MPs, "we have made the decision to continue with nuclear power" before the new consultation had finished.
This latest round of consultation is clearly a rubber stamping exercise designed to push through the Prime Minister's pre-ordained policy on nuclear energy.
Along with the Green Alliance, WWF and Friends of the Earth, we published a dossier today that reveals that:
- the government has rushed through the consultation in half the time recommended by its own environmental watchdog the Sustainable Development Commission;
- consultation materials provided for the public are misleading, inaccurate and biased towards nuclear power;
- repeated requests from non-governmental organisations for updates from the government about the development of public materials for the consultation and proceeding were ignored.
Read all the shocking details in the dossier.
Clearly this government can't get nuclear power past a fair consultation because the policy is environmentally, financially and scientifically flawed. That's why ministers have gone for a stitch-up. Again.
Here's the information the government doesn't want you to see. Take a look at our new film - The Convenient Solution - if you would like to find out why nuclear power won't solve climate change and what the real solution is.
Bugs, Snails,Mushroms and Wind Farms
I'm a mycologist and say let's hear it for the tiny wee things all life depends on and we ignore at our peril
A serious problem never considered in wind turbines is the devastation their physical vibrations cause under the ground as well as above it. These vibrations are generated in the machinery and support structure, transmitted down the shaft into the great concrete blocks holding them up, then radiated many kilometers
They include sub- and super-sonic frequencies which distort and move individual living cells; inhibit insects, arthropods and other invertebrates finding food and mates; create havoc with small and microscopic fungi; given time entirely destroy the very fabric of peat bogs and structure of soils
No research has ever been done into these problems so I've written to the Prime Minister; First Minister for Scotland and others calling for a complete moratorium on all wind farm development in the UK until research confirms we know what we're doing. Because I know we don't
Dixie Dean (Prof. Em.)
the consultation day
As one of the mere 1000 people selected for this consultation I was very pleased I had spent some time on your website before the day, but was sorry to see that Greenpeace had chosen to withdraw altogether from the process.
We were told numerous times that we didn't need to know anything before we came to the event. It became quickly clear that the intention was to provide us with very limited, biased information in order to lead the participants to a predetermined conclusion. I was lucky to have some alternative information under my belt, but most people felt it was biased and even those who agreed with me believed nuclear power to be a foregone conclusion. The questions were very leading and I could almost see them forming a prime minster's pro-nuclear power speech.
The question of whether the stations would be built in time to address the 'power gap' was carefully avoided.
In Cardiff, however, we were lucky enough to have been shown two short clips of Greenpeace's representative as the new Greenpeace-free tape had not reached us in time. Small as it was, this contribution at least showed a tiny bit of opposition to the main cause of the day. I am sorry other groups did not get to see it.
Alternatives to nuclear power were presented as: Coal and Gas (dirty CO2 emitters) and renewables in the form of wind and wave power (expensive - no mention of the expense of nuclear!). CHP was referred to in one line of one of many factsheets read to us, saying it was explained in a further reference sheet which we did not receive. I asked for that sheet and the main emphasis of the information was the set up costs of CHP.
The event was held in a windowless, therefore heavily lit, heated hotel room. A video projector ran all day. Any emphasis on energy saving was not represented in practice.
It was an interesting day, to become aware of others' opinions on such subjects and I think my voice encouraged at least one to look at your site but I am very afraid that in the end we could make very little difference on that occasion.
However, it became clear there was much scope on my table of 10 for discussion on renewables, sustainable living, recycling and taking personal responsibility. I think the country is ripe for a change in its thinking. Everyone felt an emphasis on effective education could make a huge difference.
It also became clear that this discussion was geared to whether the government should be allowing private companies the OPTION of building these plants. If the government do insist on pursuing this option, is there anything we can do to dissuade the companies? There's still a chance, with financial arguments or consumer moves towards sustainable options, that they may choose not to go that way.
Meg
Thanks Meg
Really interesting to hear about your experiences at the "consultation". You already know this but I thought others might want to know - we've posted Meg's comment as a blog - and, if anyone else reading this went along to one of the sessions, please drop us a line or two and let us know what you made of it all.
Bex
gpuk
govt nuclear power consultation
Vicky from Plaid Cymru
From my reading of the document it states that waste will be stored for up to 100 years in situ bfore final disposal in deep geological internment. 100 years temporary storage is no solution. Their arguments are that it can degrade so it is safer to handle in this time. But the argument for nuclear rests on satisfactory permanent solution for the waste. None of the existing waste has been put in this depository which is the satisfactory final place which govt. has agreed on.
So there is in effect no waste disposal policy or plan worthy of confidence.
the other problem with the consultation is that there is zero discussion or detail or data on the damage done by the waste to life or people. How can we call this a consultation when there is no assessment of actual risk?
iT IS NOT A PROPER CONSULTAION.
Or have I missed something? Pls advise.
Vicky
I don't think you've missed anything,
I think you're spot on. No one can guarantee that this highly radioactive waste won’t leak back into the environment, contaminating water supplies and the food chain. A way to safely dispose of nuclear waste has still not been found - a view supported by the Sustainable Development Commission. The chair of CoRWM (the body tasked with finding a solution to dealing with the UK's half a million tonnes of solid radioactive waste) admits that "clearly our recommendations ["deep dumping"] do not solve the problem".
As far as I can see, the consultation has been designed to skirt over all the negative aspects of nuclear: the many, many unresolved problems that the radioactive waste will create, the full costs of new build (taxpayers' subsidies), and how little nuclear power will do to help cut carbon emissions and guarantee energy security.
Bex
gpuk
i invite you Bex to look at
i invite you Bex to look at this link i found- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17mETJNBvOU
although it gets quite boring, it is well woth it as it explains a lot about safety standards.
ok about your point 'No one can guarantee that this highly radioactive waste won’t leak back into the environment, contaminating water supplies and the food chain.'
- I am afraid nothing is certain in life, anybody could be killed or injured in numerous ways ranging from being hit by a 5 ton lorry to lightening blots to just being plain mugged or even being hit by an asteroid EVERY single day. just because something has the POTENTIAL to happen (eg: i don't look properly when i cross my street and a lorry hits me) doesn't mean that we can't do the action leading to this risk. i look both ways before i cross, i enclose the 'highly radioactive waste' in lead lined boxes that are basically impenatrable , so in fact, you take preventitive measures.
your point 'A way to safely dispose of nuclear waste has still not been found ' yes it has, put it in a big deep hole, we just have to find the right deep hole, the Americans have done so and so can we, however geological surveys can take some time so patience is required.
you have made a point several times about radioactive waste as being dangerous, i assure you most waste is actually practically harmless, ESPECIALLY in aforsaid lead lined boxes. The reason for their small amount of danger is that most are objects such as protective clothing worn by docters which emit a very low level of radiation, which is very small compared to the 47% or so of all radiaction that affects us humans that comes from radon gas, a perfectly natural gas. Most of the remaining percentage if i remember of school days correctly comes from space, so infact all our waste is negligible compared to the amount of naturally occuring radiation.
your point: As far as I can see, the consultation has been designed to skirt over all the negative aspects of nuclear: the many, many unresolved problems that the radioactive waste will create, the full costs of new build (taxpayers' subsidies), and how little nuclear power will do to help cut carbon emissions and guarantee energy security.
you people really are a hypocrites aren't you? Of course, every study has some biases in it. If the government wants to build nuclear up again, it will ask leading questions, it is natural human behaviour to gravitate towards the questions you want. There are many negative implications to green power sourses such as wind, in fact without taxpayers' subsidies being green power wouldn't be profitable at all. Saying that one thing (green or nuclear) is better than something else (green or nuclear) is wrong if you don't give the facts, which you don't seem to i am afraid. This raises the question (to my mind at least, i have no doubt you are all going to flak me mercilesly without taking in what i am saying) why should the government have to ask normal people whose only permenant image of nuclear power is nuclear BOMB, or radioactive waste etc wether they should undertake a complicated project involving billions? shouldn't they be asking a panel of experts? ask yourselves what normal people know about the difference between alpha particles and gamma rays, digging techniques for new safety deposits, half lives, pottential terrorist threat etc?
the fact is that no-one in this really has the higher ground in moral terms, if people were more educated about this type of thing then there wouldn't be so much hysteria.
for those of you that are interested try looking at it from someone else's point of view, not just the view of greenpeace
finally, these nuclear powerplants been built are suposed to replace ones in active service aren't they? well ofc they will not reduce emissions greatly, just as building 20000 odd turbines in some suitably county sized area will not significantly reduce emissions if they replace the ol power plants
ty for time everyone, feel free to flame away! :)
Bex is away so I hope I'll
Bex is away so I hope I'll be a suitable substitute. Thanks for the video link, it was... erm, stimulating.
Yes, there's a certain element of risk in everyday life but why needlessly expose us to more? We have a choice between powering our society with safe, non-toxic renewable energy, or with highly radioactive and persistent fuels. Processing uranium leaves depleted uranium as a by-product, a substance which is highly dangerous. Reprocessing spent fuel produces high level radioactive waste, and even low level waste - such as protective clothing which has been contaminated - is still dangerous if it gets into your body. I could go on.
Shoving all this in a big hole in the ground is no guarantee it won't come back to haunt us, and the nuclear industry doesn't seem to have a good grasp of geology - remember the earthquake in Japan this year which rocked a power plant that just happened to be sitting on a fault line? Not to mention British Energy's claims this week that their preferred sites for new build are safe from the ravages of climate change which are sheer fantasy.
A consultation which isn't interested in giving the full facts and actually listening to people's opinions is a pointless waste of time, not to mention insulting our intelligence. But there's a contradiction in your argument - you say it's fair enough that the government has loaded the debate, but then say it's impossible to say one thing is better than another without providing the full facts. Make your mind up. Besides, the nuclear industry has only survived into the present day through massive government subsidies, and there are no guarantees this won't continue.
And you might want to revisit your claim that wind turbines "will not significantly reduce emissions if they replace ol (sic) power plants". I think you were getting a bit carried away.
web editor
gpuk