TAKE ACTION
Latest news
The nuclear White Paper: an analysis
Posted by bex on 10 January 2008.
Our political unit has been trawling through the fine print of this morning's nuclear White Paper. Here's their initial analysis, outlining some of the more subtle ways the government has understated the real risks to the taxpayer and the lack of clarity on economics:
- The White Paper shows how nuclear companies will be able to cap their liabilities, leaving the tax payer exposed if estimates for dealing with waste change.
- It openly admits the government will have to provide extra money if cost estimates are wrong.
- It uses questionable financial estimates to build the nuclear economic case.
Government small print promises nuclear bailout
Buried in the nuclear white paper published today is a commitment by the government to bail out nuclear power if something goes wrong.
Reacting, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
"After all the promises from ministers that the private sector would pay the full costs of new nuclear power stations, we find it wasn't true. Buried in the small print of their announcement is the revelation that tax payers will foot the bill if something goes wrong. Much about the government's nuclear spin has been fundamentally dishonest."
Paragrph 3.52 of the white paper states: "Our policy on waste and decommissioning for new nuclear power stations is designed to ensure that operators make adequate arrangements to cover the full costs of decommissioning and a full share of waste management costs. Operators are responsible for decommissioning and waste management costs. If the protections we are putting in place through the Energy Bill prove insufficient, in extreme circumstances the Government may be called upon to meet the costs of ensuring the protection of the public and the environment."
For more information, contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255.
Mind the gap
Posted by John Sauven on 10 January 2008.
On Tuesday, Gordon Brown announced his government’s support for a new generation of nuclear power plants. In so doing, he casts himself in the role of the bold leader, taking tough decisions for the common good.
Certainly The Sun has bought it wholesale, shrieking: ‘Britain’s security will be in peril if we continue to rely on Russian despot Vladimir Putin or Middle Eastern states for our gas and oil.’
Read more »
20% renewables by 2020? Not without a new energy policy...
Posted by jossc on 22 August 2007.
Bad energy: inefficient centralised energy generation is a major contributor to global warming
Over the next decade, Britain needs to invest tens of billions on renewing its dilapidated energy infrastructure. Many of our current nuclear, coal and gas power stations will close, and the electricity transmission and distribution grids themselves will need replacement.
Which provides us with a once-in-a-generation chance for the government to redesign our energy market. We have the perfect opportunity to go for maximum environmental efficiency, whilst ensuring energy security and reliability of supply.
Read more »
Why Tony Blair is wrong about nuclear power
Posted by bex on 23 May 2007.
Today, the government has finally published its energy white paper. After last year's energy consultation was ruled "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair" by a High Court Judge, this white paper outlines a new energy policy - and a new nuclear consultation.
Yep, despite a few ineffectual concessions to renewables and efficiency, Tony Blair is still busily spinning the nuclear industry's line: that nuclear power is the answer to climate change. And we still think he's dangerously wrong.
Read more »
Greenpeace on Planning White Paper
Reacting to the publication by Ruth Kelly of a Planning White Paper, Greenpeace Director John Sauven said:
“The government wants to give the rubber stamp to the wrong projects. Ministers are diluting democracy and saying they know best, but a glance at their performance on climate change over the last decade shows how wrong they often are. This White Paper is clearly intended to open the door to new nuclear power stations and airports, which will take the UK’s fight against climate change backwards. Given the urgency of the problem, this White Paper should have supported low carbon and renewable energy technologies that are of benefit to both local communities and the wider environment and could be generating clean energy in the near future.”
This week will see the publication of an Energy White Paper, delayed following a successful Greenpeace judicial review. For a full media briefing on the Energy White Paper see:
www.greenpeace.org.uk/energyreview
ENDS
For more contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255.
Energy white paper to be published
In February, a High Court judge described Tony Blair’s energy review as "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair". Mr Justice Sullivan ruled in favour of Greenpeace - which had brought a judicial review - declaring the energy review process unlawful.
As a result, the government's 2007 Energy White Paper - intended for publication in March - was delayed. Next week a series of documents, including the white paper, will be published.
ON MONDAY a planning white paper will be published. It will detail government proposals to loosen planning regulations, allowing new nuclear power stations and airport expansion to go ahead in the face of public opposition.
ON WEDNESDAY it is expected that the energy white paper will be published. On the same day, details of a new nuclear consultation will be revealed. The new consultation became necessary after the original process was found by the High Court to have been unlawful. Greenpeace claimed the first consultation was a "stitch-up" by Tony Blair, designed to foist new nuclear power stations on the UK. It is also believed that a government nuclear siting report could be released on Wednesday. The report, detailing where the government would like to see new nuclear power stations built, was refused to Greenpeace under a Freedom of Information Act request.
A full media briefing on the successful Greenpeace judicial review, the process leading up to next week and the fundamental flaws in next week's announcements can be downloaded here:
www.greenpeace.org.uk/energybriefing
Anticipating next week’s publications, Greenpeace Director John Sauven said:
"Planning, by definition, is supposed to be a vision of the future. Given the urgency of climate change, this Planning White Paper should support low carbon and renewable energy technologies that are of benefit to both local communities and the wider environment. Instead it is clearly intended to open the door to new nuclear power stations and airports which are simply not the answer to the huge challenges we face."
On the Energy White Paper, he added:
"Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like a couch potato taking up smoking to lose weight. It doesn’t deal with the problem, wastes money better spent elsewhere and brings huge problems of its own. That’s why Tony Blair had to fix the energy review to get the answer he wanted."
He continued:
"The government's current energy strategy simply won’t put us on a path to delivering the kinds of cuts needed to combat climate change. We need a policy that will completely transform the way energy is consumed and delivered across all sectors rather than piecemeal changes to the existing system. It’s clear that this forthcoming Energy White Paper will not match the commitments the government has made at an EU level for twenty per cent of our energy, which includes electricity, heat and transport, must come from renewable sources by 2020. For electricity, this will mean around thirty-five per cent must come from renewable sources.”
Greenpeace supports building a new fleet of power stations across the country - modern large scale, renewable energy projects as well as ultra-efficient, Combined Heat and Power (CHP) stations rather than the modified 1950s relics the Government is supporting that waste more energy than they produce. Two-thirds of the energy going in to the UK’s centralised power stations is immediately lost in the form of waste heat.
We are confident that if the government carries out a consultation on nuclear power in the coming months and is open minded about the conclusions it will realise that nuclear power will not deliver either energy security or the carbon reductions required by 2020.
The government needs to change the way we use and generate heat and electricity. This requires a transformation rather than tinkering with an old, outdated system.
ENDS
Greenpeace spokespeople are available for interview and analysis.
Contact the Greenpeace press office on:
0207 865 8255
Energy white paper 2007
In February a High Court judge described Tony Blair's energy review as "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair." Mr Justice Sullivan ruled in favour of Greenpeace - which had brought a judicial review - declaring the energy review process unlawful.
As a result, the Government's 2007 Energy White Paper - intended for publication in March - was delayed. Next week a series of documents, including the White Paper, will be published.
A full media briefing on the successful Greenpeace judicial review, the process leading up to next week and the fundamental flaws in next week's announcements is available below.
Greenpeace response to energy white paper announcement
Responding to today's announcement that the energy white paper will be delayed after the High Court ruled last week that the government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was unlawful, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Emma Gibson said:
"The government should go back to their findings in the 2003 energy white paper, that rejected nuclear power and backed energy efficiency and renewables. If the government had followed its 2003 words with effective actions, we'd have made much more progress in tackling climate change today.
"Greenpeace would welcome a new white paper that gave extra support to the real solutions, such as energy efficiency, decentralised energy and renewables.
"Nuclear is a separate issue and a total distraction to the real solutions. The government must not include nuclear in any white paper until after fully and properly consulting the public on this dangerous red herring.
"The High Court decision gives the government another opportunity to ditch nuclear power once and for all and concentrate on tackling climate change with effective solutions.
"The government have said they're going to make a decision on nuclear power in the autumn. This gives them less than six months to run the fullest consultation, consider all the evidence and reach an informed conclusion. Meanwhile, Blair says that his attitude to nuclear power hasn't changed. This strongly suggests that, yet again, they've already made their mind up before rushing into another sham consultation."
The government's own Sustainable Development Commission says that the five major disadvantages of nuclear power are:
- Long-term waste - no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste.
- Cost - the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there's a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab.
- Inflexibility - nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.
- Undermining energy efficiency - a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that's required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.
- International security - if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.
ENDS
GREENPEACE PRESS OFFICE -- 020 7865 8255.
NOTES:
In 2003 at the announcement of the energy white paper, Patricia Hewitt said that:
"If we achieve a step change in both energy efficiency and renewables we will be able beyond 2020 to move to 2050 without the need for a generation of nuclear power stations..."[1]
"Energy efficiency is by far the cheapest and simplest way of meeting all our policy goals in this area."[2]
"It would have been foolish to announce...that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment in both energy efficiency and renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now."[3]
[1] "Five years for green power to prove its worth: Ministers throw down gauntlet on alternative to nuclear comeback", by David Gow, Tuesday February 25, 2003; The Guardian
[2] Hansard; 20 March 2003 : Column 1071
[3] Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32
Energy white paper sounds a death knell for the nuclear industry
Posted by bex on 24 March 2003.
Back in the summer of 2001 there was much talk of a nuclear renaissance. Brian Wilson, a passionate advocate of nuclear power, was appointed Energy Minister and Tony Blair made several supportive statements.
Wilson told anyone who would listen that nuclear power was essential to tackle climate change and that renewables, while all very well, would never deliver significant amounts of electricity. The scientific establishment, in the shape of the Royal Society and the Government's Chief Scientist, David King, weighed in with the "scientific" opinion that climate change goals could not be met without new nuclear stations - despite the fact that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had published scenarios showing exactly how it could be done.
In February 2003, the long-awaited energy white paper was launched. Blair gave a speech about the need to cut carbon emissions by 60% (the target suggested by the Royal Commission) and the central role of technology in delivering that. He did not make a single reference to nuclear power. He gave an unprecedentedly upbeat assessment of the potential of renewables, and spoke in ringing terms about the role of hydrogen in delivering clean energy.
The white paper itself had some words about keeping the nuclear option open, but no measures to help the industry. The industry had lobbied hard for more subsidy, exemption from the Climate Change Levy, reduction in their local authority rate bill, just about anything that would enable them to stay afloat economically. They had demanded special planning treatment - so-called pre-licence agreements - to help circumvent local opposition. They failed to get anything. The spin around the white paper launch was about the end of nuclear power, and the commentary in the following day's papers was about whether the industry was completely dead, or just very nearly. No wonder Bernard Ingham, the country's best-known nuclear advocate, was incandescent with rage.