Publication date: October 2003

Summary
Greenpeace has major concerns with the Nuclear Sites and Radioactive Substances Bill as it is currently worded. In particular, we are concerned that the draft Bill has been transformed from a measure rooted in environmental and health concerns and aimed at dealing with legacy waste to a measure which makes possible the transfer of the costs of nuclear liabilities, past or future, from the nuclear industry, publicly owned or private, to the state. The transfer of the liability inherent in nuclear power from the industry to the taxpayer, coupled with the proposed power of the NDA itself to run power stations and create more waste undermines the original purpose of the legislation, favours the production of nuclear power and undermines the public confidence in legislation whose primary aim should be the protection of health and the environment, in the context of ending the UK's nuclear industry.

Greenpeace occupy Sizewell in 2002: 72% say no to nuclear power

150 Greenpeace volunteers have entered the site of Sizewell B nuclear power station as part of a campaign against Government plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The volunteers have not entered any building or interfered with the operation of the plant but have peacefully occupied roof tops around the site. The volunteers plan to maintain a safe, peaceful and non-violent occupation of the site until the Government commits to ending the British nuclear programme.

The volunteers entered the Sizewell B site unopposed at around 7.00am via both the main gatehouse and the perimeter fence which backs onto the beach. Many of the volunteers are wearing Homer Simpson and Tony Blair costumes as a comment on the stupidity of current Government thinking over nuclear power. All of the volunteers are wearing indicator badges to monitor exposure to radiation and are adhering to an overall radiation management plan to minimise risk.

Blake Lee-Harwood, one of those peacefully occupying the plant said:

"The Government seems intent on building a new generation of nuclear power stations despite the dangers and overwhelming public opposition. Britain went down the nuclear road before and we ended up with a contaminated environment and a £0 billion bill for the taxpayer. It seems unbelievable that this Government intends to repeat the mistake when we could easily generate our power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. Wind farms off the coast of East Anglia alone could generate as much electricity as all of Britain's nuclear plants"

Sizewell B was the last nuclear power station to be built in Britain and will probably be the site of the first of a new generation in coming years. The Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, has repeatedly argued for a new generation of atomic plants to be built and the Prime Minister has backed nuclear power in the past. The Government's recent consultation on Britain's energy future asked questions based on the concept: "How can we make nuclear power more acceptable to the public" - not if people wanted more nuclear plants. There is already a prepared site next to Sizewell B where a new 'Sizewell C' would be built.

Greenpeace believes that all nuclear power stations can be closed by the time of the next general election and the next government could lead a nuclear-free Britain. Greenpeace believes that nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unpopular:

Unsafe, because nuclear power stations create dangerous radioactive wastes that last for hundreds of thousands of years and discharge radioactivity to the environment on a daily basis. Nuclear power plants are also vulnerable to terrorist attack with appalling consequences. There is no safe level of exposure to radiation.

Uneconomic, because nuclear power generation creates vast radioactive legacies for which there is no safe solution. The total liabilities of the British nuclear programme amount to £0 billion which will be paid for by the taxpayer. Power from wind farms is cheaper than power from nuclear generation. British Energy, the owner of Sizewell, is currently in a dire financial position and close to bankruptcy.

Unpopular, because the majority of British people do not want nuclear power. A recent MORI poll showed that 72% of respondents said they preferred clean, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar rather than new nuclear power stations (1)

A recent study by AEA Technology (formerly the Atomic Energy Authority) found that forty wind farms off the coast of East Anglia could produce as much electricity as all the nuclear power stations in Britain (2). Such a scheme would create 60,000 jobs. Even with the UK's nuclear plants closed there would still be significant numbers of jobs decommissioning nuclear power stations and looking after the stockpiles of radioactive waste already created which will remain dangerous for thousands of years.

Notes to editors:
(1) MORI poll, May 2002
www.mori.com/polls/2002greenpeace-energy.shtml
(2) Sea Wind East report, July 2002
www.greenpeace.org.uk/seawindeast.htm

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255

Sizewell: 72% say no to nukes

Greenpeace projects '72% say no' on Sizewell nuclear reactor

Nearly three-quarters of the British public would rather their electricity came from renewable energy like wind, wave and solar power than from nuclear plants. In a national MORI poll commissioned by Greenpeace 72% said they preferred renewable energy to the nuclear option (cost being similar). The poll also found that 41% of the public would be less likely to vote for a political party if it supported nuclear power (1).

Greenpeace activists early today projected 72% SAY NO in giant letters on the Sizewell B reactor dome in East Anglia. Sizewell is a favourite site for a new nuclear power station and already has land set aside and levelled for a Sizewell C plant.

The MORI poll results come as the Government is reviewing the UK's energy sources for the next fifty years. Despite the high risks and already massive public opposition to nuclear power, the Government is seriously considering giving the go-ahead for more nuclear power stations across the UK. As well as East Anglia, sites are being considered in Gloucestershire, Essex, Anglesey, Gwynedd, Somerset, Ayrshire, Dumfries, Cumbria, Lancashire, East Lothian and Kent (2).

All of these regions are also strong potential sites for wind farms out at sea. Last week Greenpeace launched a report by leading energy analysts AEA Technology and backed by a major electricity utility, which showed how building forty wind farms at sea in just one of these regions - East Anglia - could entirely replace the energy generated by nuclear power and create 60,000 jobs (3).

Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Louise Edge said,
"The British public have made their choice -they don't want more dangerous, polluting and expensive nuclear plants which threaten our health and could be a target for terrorists. The Government needs to listen to public opinion and make the right decision because as this poll shows, not only are people rightly hostile to nuclear energy but would react against any party that backed raising it from the ashes".

"There is no need for more nuclear power. Wind power at sea alone could meet our electricity needs three times over and bring thousands of jobs to the UK. Add the future potential of solar and wave power, and Britain would have a clean green energy mix that will never run out."

The Government has announced a public consultation on Britain's energy supply, which will feed into a Government White Paper - due out towards the end of this year. However documents recently leaked to New Scientist magazine indicate the government is seriously considering new nuclear plants and in doing so is working to overcome some of the obstacles including restrictions imposed by international radioactive pollution laws, safety checks and planning applications (4).

Notes for editors:
(1) "If the costs of supplying the UK's energy needs were the same by either nuclear power or renewable energy sources, which, if either, would you prefer?"
I have no preference either way- 17%
Don't know- 5%
Prefer nuclear power- 6%
Prefer renewable energy sources- 72%

NB - the first offshore wind turbines in Britain are already producing power more cheaply than Britain's newest nuclear power station. Government's own figures show that wind - both on land and at sea - will be cheaper than nuclear power in 2020.

"And in principle, what effect, if at all, would a political party supporting (read out A and B) have on the likelihood of your voting for them ?"
Nuclear power: 41% less likely; 6% more likely; 47% no change; 6% don't know.
Renewable energy sources: 3% less likely; 50% more likely; 42% no change; 5% don't know.

MORI interviewed a representative quota sample of 973 adults aged 15+, face-to-face in home, throughout Great Britain between 17-21 May2 002. Data have been weighted to reflect the national profile. For the full MORI poll visit www.mori.com

(2) Extract from "REPLACE NUCLEAR WITH NUCLEAR" - British Energy's Submission to the Government's Review of UK Energy Policy, September 2001- para 29. "Across the UK there is a range of suitable sites adjacent to existing nuclear facilities owned by British Energy and BNFL."

(3) For full report visit www.greenpeace.org.uk/seawindeast.htm

(4) According to internal policy briefings leaked to New Scientist, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) wants to speed up safety checks of new reactors and is discussing ways to soften up public opposition to nuclear power. Proposals in the briefing included:

• Overhauling regulations on reactor safety so that new designs can be licensed more quickly and cheaply by "simplifying licensing requirements" and collaborating with the US on "generic approvals"
• Making it easier for nuclear plants to receive planning permission - "Simplification of the planning system could also be an issue, together with ways of compensating local communities for the perceived disbenefits of new nuclear build."
• In the document the DTI is also expressed concern that international moves to tighten the limits on radioactive discharges into the sea could prevent new nuclear plants from being approved. "The limits - and pressure to further reduce them - will be carefully monitored to ensure that the future position is not unintentionally compromised," it promises. For the full article visit www.newscientist.com.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255

Publication date: 1 July 2002

Summary

Almost 90 per cent of Britain's hazardous nuclear waste stockpile is so badly stored it could explode or leak with devastating results at any time, reported The Observer newspaper on Sunday 30th June 2002.

The information came from a study carried out jointly by two government advisory committees (The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Nuclear safety Advisory Committee). Their report reveals that up to 24 nuclear storage sites around the UK house volatile material that could explode on contact with water, spontaneously combust in the air, or leak in water.

Click on the link above to read the official letters and documentation, describing these 'challenging wastes.'

Despite finding itself in the middle of a radioactive waste crisis that it cannot control, the UK government is actually considering building up to ten more nuclear power stations.