Another legal threat for the government over nuclear plans

Heh, I suspect nothing I write will change your mind either but I'll give it a go anyway :-)

OK, obviously we disagree on safety (here's a list of reasons why), but I also disagree on nuclear's role in security of supply. There was a brilliant (in my opinion) report published today by a load of academics - and some members of CoRWM - which has a whole chapter on security of supply (p37). Worth a read.

In short, it argues that the constraints of labour force, construction, reactor location, the vulnerability of reactors to extreme weather events all count as risks for security of supply, and that nuclear new build will add to these risks by making us more dependent on national and trans-European grids (which are vulnerable to large scale failure). It also argues that the kind of decentralised energy system we're campaigning for can help insulate against these risks.

On the court case, yes it's a democratically elected government, and it has a duty to act democratically - not to mention lawfully! We launched our legal challenge last year on the basis that the government had promised the fullest public consultation before deciding on nuclear power. They failed to act democratically and deliver on this. The judge ruled that the review was "seriously flawed" because insufficient and "misleading" information had been made available by the government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".

There was also an interesting article in The Guardian yesterday showing the role that (unelected) civil servants have played in undermining renewables to make space for nuclear in government policy.

Anyway, happy new year back to you!

Bex
gpuk

Heh, I suspect nothing I write will change your mind either but I'll give it a go anyway :-) OK, obviously we disagree on safety (here's a list of reasons why), but I also disagree on nuclear's role in security of supply. There was a brilliant (in my opinion) report published today by a load of academics - and some members of CoRWM - which has a whole chapter on security of supply (p37). Worth a read. In short, it argues that the constraints of labour force, construction, reactor location, the vulnerability of reactors to extreme weather events all count as risks for security of supply, and that nuclear new build will add to these risks by making us more dependent on national and trans-European grids (which are vulnerable to large scale failure). It also argues that the kind of decentralised energy system we're campaigning for can help insulate against these risks. On the court case, yes it's a democratically elected government, and it has a duty to act democratically - not to mention lawfully! We launched our legal challenge last year on the basis that the government had promised the fullest public consultation before deciding on nuclear power. They failed to act democratically and deliver on this. The judge ruled that the review was "seriously flawed" because insufficient and "misleading" information had been made available by the government for consultees to make an "intelligent response". There was also an interesting article in The Guardian yesterday showing the role that (unelected) civil servants have played in undermining renewables to make space for nuclear in government policy. Anyway, happy new year back to you! Bex gpuk