Energy Minister Charles Hendry today announced there will be a re-consultation of the widely criticised Energy National Policy Statements (NPS). Originally expected to be ready by the end of July, Hendry has said it will not be ready until Spring next year when Parliament can debate it.
The announcement throws the planning process into some confusion as there will be no list of nuclear sites with which developers such as EdF can line up their planning applications.
The text of the announcement suggests that the Government fears being challenged over aspects of the Policy Statements which may not be legally watertight. The suggestion is that the re-consultation and consequent delay will benefit the developers in terms of certainty but oddly states that a nuclear power station is still possible by 2018.
Friends of the Earth earlier this year promised to mount a legal challenge over the first NPS consultation framework. RSPB, World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace all hinted strongly that aspects of the NPS were open to challenge.
The specific parts of the Policy Statements highlighted by the announcement are called Appraisals of Sustainability. The AoS must for example include 'comparison with reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy'. In other words renewable energy should be thoroughly investigated as an alternative to the policy of introducing new nuclear power at any specific site.
Other planning anomalies have been raised by campaigners such as the fact that no new reactor designs will have been licensed by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) while being assessed by the IPC (or its successor). The Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process, whose current reactor design assessment is expected to be finished in June next year, is not legally binding and separate from the NII licensing process. Objections have also been raised over the transparency of the GDA process.
The planning and licensing process seems to have lots of 'carts before horses'.
Hinkley Point was the subject of a planning application in 2006 for a twelve turbine wind-farm, later rejected by local planners, despite over 4,000 signatures in its support, following objections on safety grounds by British Energy, now owned by EdF. British Energy also objected on the grounds that developers may want to build a nuclear power station on the same site in the future.
The National Policy Statements are blueprints by which the newly created Infrastructure Planning Commission can judge applications. Without the Policy Statements, duly designated and signed-off by the Secretary of State, it is difficult to see how the applications for nuclear power stations such as Hinkley C can be scrutinised.
However a spokesman for the Infrastructure planning Commission said to Stop Hinkley that a case could still be examined and a recommendation made 'under a hierarchy of policy'. When asked how the public or even the IPC commissioners could judge what questions to put in the planning process without a blueprint we were told they would come back to us after seeking advice.
The IPC's future was also touched on in today's announcement, as the Conservatives and Liberals had both promised changes to the planning quango. Another announcement will be made in the summer.
Jim Duffy, Stop Hinkley Coordinator said: "This was a surprise announcement which raises lots of questions: Will the alternatives to nuclear be thoroughly examined in the new consultation? Will the Hinkley C application be allowed to go ahead as planned in December? If so how will it be managed in the absence of a planning blueprint? And what status will the new reactor licensing team have, pending approval from the safety regulator, during the 'fast-track' planning process?"
"A nine month delay from the Government on top of EdF's six-month planning application (1) delay looks likely to affect their hopes for a 2018 opening of the two massive reactors at Hinkley C. DECC must have become twitchy at the prospect that the widely criticised Policy Statements pushed through by the Labour Party were not legally watertight. It may be that the Government has not sufficiently examined the prospects for renewable energy as a sustainable alternative to nuclear and the Liberal Democrats have pushed for a re-evaluation."
Jim Duffy Stop Hinkley Coordinator
http://www.stophinkley.org/
Notes:
(1) IPC projects, see page 2.
The first application was originally listed as 2nd August 2010, already put back from July as stated in EdF's newsletters. The IPC confirmed that the planning application dates are put forward by the 'applicants' and not changed by the IPC, contrary to EdF's statement on their delay:
http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/?page_id=202
The DECC re-consultation is separate from the EdF second stage consultation on proposals for Hinkley Point which opened on 9th July ending on 4th October.
Organisation: Department of Energy and Climate Change WMS: Consultation for draft energy national policy statements 15.07.10
The WMS regarding the consultation for draft Energy National Policy Statements has now been published.
http://www.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/WMS/WMS_2010/July_15_2010/WMS_7_DECC.doc
Consultation for draft Energy National Policy Statements
Written statement by Charles Hendry MP, Minister of State for Energy
Today I am announcing that the Government will be launching a re-consultation in the autumn on the draft energy National Policy Statements following the consultation undertaken by the previous administration earlier this year, and in particular due to changes which have been made to the Appraisal of Sustainability for the Overarching Energy National Policy Statement.
The revised statements will give investors the certainty they need to bring forward proposals to maintain security of supply and ensure progress towards decarbonisation and plans for the first new nuclear power station to begin generating electricity by 2018 remain on course.
We intend to present the finalised statements to Parliament for ratification next Spring. A detailed implementation plan for planning reform on major infrastructure - including transitional arrangements and a revised timetable - will be published later in the summer.
Read on Dods Monitoring
Organisation: Department of Energy and Climate Change
Consultation on draft national policy statements for energy
15.07.10
The Government's draft National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure will be strengthened, it was announced today.
Charles Hendry, Minister of State for Energy said:
"For large energy projects we need to give industry maximum certainty, so that if sound proposals come forward, they will not fall victim to unnecessary hold-ups.
"We have decided to take a further look at the Appraisal of Sustainability of our draft Energy Policy Statements to make sure that they are fit for purpose. Taking this decision now is essential to safeguard our long-term goal of a sustainable and secure energy supply".
Plans for the first new nuclear power station to begin generating electricity by 2018 remain on course.
Notes:
DECC has already consulted on the Energy National Policy Statements. Having considered the responses to that consultation, we have decided to take a further look at the Appraisals of Sustainability (AoSs) of the NPSs. The reconsultation will provide a chance to look at the reworked AoS and the changes to the draft NPSs.
Under the Planning Act 2008[External link] an appraisal of sustainability (AoS) must be carried out on the policies set out in any NPS before it is designated. An AoS is an assessment of the environmental, social and economic impacts of implementing a policy, and includes comparison with reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy.
The Nuclear Development Forum, taking place today, brings together senior figures at CEO level from the nuclear industry, regulators, wider supply chain companies and skills bodies who are involved in making a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK a reality.
Friday, 16 July 2010
France Imports Electricity from the UK as heatwave puts nuclear power stations out of action
From The Times July 3, 2009
France imports UK electricity as plants shut.
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.
With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.
Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.
A spokesman for National Grid said that electricity flows from Britain to France during the peak demand yesterday morning were as high as 1,000MW — roughly equivalent to the output of Dungeness nuclear power station on the Kent coast.
Nick Campbell, an energy trader at Inenco, the consultancy, said: “We have been exporting continuously from this morning and the picture won’t change through peak hours, right up until 4pm.”
EDF warned last month that France might need to import up to 8,000MW of electricity from other countries by mid-July — enough to power Paris — because of the combined impact of hot weather, a ten-week strike by power workers and ongoing repairs.
EDF must also observe strict rules governing the heat of the water it discharges into waterways so that wildlife is not harmed. The maximum permitted temperature is 24C. Lower electricity output from riverside reactors during hot weather usually coincides with surging demand as French consumers turn up their air conditioners.
One power industry insider said yesterday that about 20GW (gigawatts) of France’s total nuclear generating capacity of 63GW was out of service.
Much of the shortfall this summer is likely to be met by Britain, which, since 1986, has been linked to the French power grid by a 45km sub-sea power cable that runs from Sellindge in Kent to Les Mandarins.
A statement from EDF played down the heat problems, saying that the French system continued to meet customer demands — but similar heatwaves have caused serious problems in France in the past.
In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C. France has five plants located by the sea and EDF tries to avoid carrying out any repairs to them during the summer because they do not suffer from cooling problems.
France’s first nuclear power station was built at Chinon, on the Loire, in 1964. Other riverside plants include Bugey (on the Rhône), Tricastin (Drôme), Golfech (Garonne) and Blayais (Garonne). Britain’s ten nuclear power plants, which supply 16 per cent of the country’s electricity, are all built on coastal sites so they do not suffer the same problem with overheating. But long periods of hot weather do still add to stress to the network. Gas-fired plants, which form a big part of Britain’s generating fleet, also need to reduce output during hot weather.
However, the recession has led to a 6 per cent fall in the UK’s electricity requirements because of weaker industrial demand, so the margin of spare generating capacity in Britain has grown. EDF earns about €3 billion a year exporting electricity to countries including Britain.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/
France imports UK electricity as plants shut.
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.
With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.
Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.
A spokesman for National Grid said that electricity flows from Britain to France during the peak demand yesterday morning were as high as 1,000MW — roughly equivalent to the output of Dungeness nuclear power station on the Kent coast.
Nick Campbell, an energy trader at Inenco, the consultancy, said: “We have been exporting continuously from this morning and the picture won’t change through peak hours, right up until 4pm.”
EDF warned last month that France might need to import up to 8,000MW of electricity from other countries by mid-July — enough to power Paris — because of the combined impact of hot weather, a ten-week strike by power workers and ongoing repairs.
EDF must also observe strict rules governing the heat of the water it discharges into waterways so that wildlife is not harmed. The maximum permitted temperature is 24C. Lower electricity output from riverside reactors during hot weather usually coincides with surging demand as French consumers turn up their air conditioners.
One power industry insider said yesterday that about 20GW (gigawatts) of France’s total nuclear generating capacity of 63GW was out of service.
Much of the shortfall this summer is likely to be met by Britain, which, since 1986, has been linked to the French power grid by a 45km sub-sea power cable that runs from Sellindge in Kent to Les Mandarins.
A statement from EDF played down the heat problems, saying that the French system continued to meet customer demands — but similar heatwaves have caused serious problems in France in the past.
In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C. France has five plants located by the sea and EDF tries to avoid carrying out any repairs to them during the summer because they do not suffer from cooling problems.
France’s first nuclear power station was built at Chinon, on the Loire, in 1964. Other riverside plants include Bugey (on the Rhône), Tricastin (Drôme), Golfech (Garonne) and Blayais (Garonne). Britain’s ten nuclear power plants, which supply 16 per cent of the country’s electricity, are all built on coastal sites so they do not suffer the same problem with overheating. But long periods of hot weather do still add to stress to the network. Gas-fired plants, which form a big part of Britain’s generating fleet, also need to reduce output during hot weather.
However, the recession has led to a 6 per cent fall in the UK’s electricity requirements because of weaker industrial demand, so the margin of spare generating capacity in Britain has grown. EDF earns about €3 billion a year exporting electricity to countries including Britain.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/
Building New Reactors Damages Attempts to Tackle Climate Change
“We concentrated so much on nuclear that we lost sight of everything else … And nuclear has failed to deliver. It has turned out to be a costly gamble for Finland, and for the planet.” Oras Tynkynnen, a climate policy adviser, Finnish prime minister’s office. (1)
Introduction
Jurgen Trittin – Former German Federal Minister for the Environment – describes calls for more nuclear power to tackle the problem of climate change as “fighting one risk with an even bigger one”. (2) And Environment Ministers from Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Austria agree saying the current debate about the use of nuclear energy as a solution to climate change is downplaying the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety issues. (3)
But, in fact the risk associated with building new reactors is much worse than simply increasing the risks associated with nuclear power. As The Independent highlighted in an editorial after the 2007 Energy White Paper, the danger is that nuclear investment will crowd out investment in renewables and undermine energy efficiency. (4) If we divert attention political effort and resources from the urgent programmes needed to effectively tackle climate change not only will we miss our targets, but as past experience suggests we could end up with carbon emissions still rising in 2025 because the nuclear programme has been hit by the problems and delays we have seen in the past and by then it will be too late to start implementing alternative strategies.
In February 2003 the Government itself had similar concerns. After the 2003 Energy White Paper (5) was published, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, said:
“It would have been foolish to announce …a new generation of nuclear power stations, because that would have guaranteed we would not make the necessary investments in energy efficiency and renewables.” (6)
The White Paper promised a "step change" in policies and programmes to deliver energy efficiency.
(7) Six years later we are still waiting for that step change.
The trouble is that electricity only provides around 18% of UK energy demand. (8) Transport and most space heating are provided by other sources of energy. Nuclear power provides around 20% of UK electricity, which only amounts to about 8% of total energy. Allowing for losses at the power station, nuclear power’s current contribution to the UK’s final energy consumption is only 3.6 % (80 TWh/y out of a final consumption of about 2,250 TWh/y). (9)
So it is absolutely essential that we make sure building new reactors does not hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the rest of the UK energy system providing the other 96% of final energy consumption.
The Domestic Sector
For example the domestic sector uses around 30% of the final energy consumed in the UK. If the UK Government is to meet its target to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, it will need to implement a set of policies which can cut emissions from the domestic sector by 80% by 2050. It should be doing this anyway to meet its legal obligations on fuel poverty. Every house will need excellent insulation and some form of Low and Zero Carbon Technology – microgeneration or community heating schemes. This means carrying out installations in all of the UK’s 25 million dwellings over the next 40 years or 625,000 dwellings every year between now and 2050. (10)
A long-awaited government consultation on energy efficiency published in February 2009 (11) – the Heat and Energy Saving Strategy (HESS) – sets out the need to reduce household carbon emissions to almost zero, in order for the UK to achieve its ambitious targets. It plans for reductions from households of a third by 2020, and by 2030 aims is for whole-house improvements to be available to every householder. Unfortunately, while the targets are ambitious, the document fails spell out a coherent strategy for achieving them. And much of what is planned won’t start until 2013. Friends of the Earth says targets won’t be achieved if we wait four years to begin. (12) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion the Government wants to get the nuclear programme started before it turns its attention to implementing a long overdue energy efficiency and microgeneration strategy. (13)
The contrast between the amount of Government effort, energy and funding which goes into promoting new nuclear reactors compared with energy efficiency and renewable energy is staggering. In June 2008, for example, the Government created the Office of Nuclear Development (OND), to build more effective cross-Government working on nuclear energy, and facilitate new nuclear investment in the UK. The OND has staff drawn from both the civil service and from industry, bringing together the relevant Government teams and resources to achieve its objectives. (14)
Opportunity Costs
Advocates of nuclear power argue that, because climate change is serious we need to promote renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power. This suggests we have infinite sources of finance to spend on energy projects, which is obviously nonsense. A scarcity of resources means anything we spend on nuclear power will not be available to spend on other projects.
If nuclear power diverts attention and resources from renewables and energy efficiency you might think this wouldn’t be too serious for the climate, as long as we are reducing carbon emissions somehow. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth, because nuclear power has such a high “opportunity cost”. The opportunity cost of any investment is the cost of forgoing the alternative outcomes that could have been purchased with the same money.
So, of course all investments will forego other opportunities. Tackling climate change is urgent, so we need to spend our limited resources as effectively as possible. In other words we need to maximize the carbon reductions we can achieve with every pound we spend. Investing in expensive nuclear power is just about the worst thing we can do. Energy efficiency can be up to seven times more cost effective. So investment in new reactors effectively worsens climate change because each pound spent is buying so much less ‘solution’ than if it were spent it on energy efficiency measures. (15)
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute says:-
"Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects. If climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn't the solution. It's an expensive, one-size-fits-all technology that diverts money and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient alternatives." (16)
As a consequence investment in nuclear power will, in effect, worsen climate change because each pound spent is buying less solution than it would do if it were spent it on efficiency. (17)
Nuclear damages alternative carbon abatement techniques. OK, you might think, nuclear power might not be the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but as long as we spend enough we should still be able to tackle climate change.
Unfortunately, this also turns out to be wrong. Nuclear power’s contribution can only ever be really small, so we are going to have to develop energy efficiency and renewables, but we will be in real trouble if reactor construction programmes damage our efforts to develop alternative carbon abatement programmes. With nuclear power only providing around 4% of the UK’s final energy consumption, (18) we need to make absolutely sure that spending on building new reactors is not going to hinder our efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the rest of the UK energy system providing the other 96% of final energy consumption.
The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), (19) Warwick Business School (WBS) (20) and the Environment Agency (21) have all warned that a decision to proceed with new reactors could seriously undermine the development of a low carbon energy system.
Warwick Business School (WBS) argues that, far from complementing the necessary shift to a low carbon economy, the scale of the financial and institutional arrangements needed for new nuclear stations means they would fatally undermine the implementation of low carbon technologies and measures such as demand management, and therefore will ultimately undermine the shift to a true low carbon economy. (22) Dr Catherine Mitchell (23) of WBS, who was a member of the previous Energy Review team, says the 2007 White Paper has nothing to do with placing the UK on a path for carbon reductions that might meet the challenge of climate change. It has sealed the fate of the UK in not being able to meet its future carbon dioxide reduction targets. Nor will UK businesses be able to benefit from the enormous opportunities a sustainable non-nuclear future offers. (24)
“Britain has visionary goals”, says Mitchell. We have made commitments to the European Union to provide 15% of our total energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to cut projected energy demand by 20%. “If the UK meets these legally binding targets, there is no need for new nuclear or coal plants. Why does government - ie Treasury - policy seem to concentrate on technologies we don't need?” (25)
The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) points out that, even with a doubling of nuclear capacity from current levels, cuts of at least 50% would still be needed from other measures if the UK is to meet its climate targets for 2050. (26) So it is important that our capacity to implement other carbon abatement measures is not damaged by any decision to go ahead with the construction of new reactors. SDC says 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. The Commission says a decision to proceed with a new reactor programme will require “a substantial slice of political leadership … political attention would shift, and in all likelihood undermine efforts to pursue a strategy based on energy efficiency, renewables and more CHP.” (27) Sir Jonathon Porritt, chair of the Commission, says nuclear power is already seriously diverting attention from the hard decisions required to solve the UK's energy challenges. (28)
Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century believes there has already been a deliberate focus on nuclear to the detriment of renewables. He was a member of the Renewables Advisory Board established in November 2002 to advise ministers on how to implement a plan, based on renewables and energy efficiency. By September 2003 the board’s industry members were already troubled by slow progress and issued a statement of concern. Leggett says he was warned that DTI officials would deliberately go slowly to keep hopes for nuclear alive and renewables would be teed up to fail. The slow-motion UK treatment of renewables since then, while renewables markets abroad have grown explosively, now makes it clear they were successful. (29)
In a memo to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee the Environment Agency expressed concern about the impact of investing billions of pounds in a new generation of reactors because it could siphon away resources from greener alternatives. Officials at the agency fear the energy review is biased towards the nuclear option. The Agency’s Energy Review submission says it is “…concerned about the displacement effect that a large programme of investment in one capital-intensive technology like nuclear may have on energy efficiency, CHP and renewable technologies ... There is a danger that an excessive focus on nuclear power and electricity supply will mean an insufficiently robust approach to all primary energy, including heat and transport”. (30)
And globally, decisions taken in the UK and the West can impact negatively on efforts to reduce carbon emissions around the globe. Vijay Vaitheeswaran, The Economist’s environment and energy correspondent (31), says:-
“Decisions taken in the next few years about energy in rich countries like Britain and the United States will shape investments made in energy infrastructure around the world for a generation or more. After all, nuclear and coal plants and oil refineries last for decades – and that sunk investment displaces or discourages nimbler, cleaner, and more distributed options like micropower. If we want to shift to a clean, secure, low-carbon energy system during this century, the time to start is now”. (32)
What if reactors fail?
If reactor construction fails to result in the replacement of existing capacity because of construction delays or public opposition, we could end up in a worse position than we are today. (33) Gordon MacKerron, former Chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), puts forward a worst-case scenario that following a commitment to nuclear new-build there is a sterilisation of non-nuclear investment and then the nuclear programme itself stalls. Such a scenario is far from a remote chance - the last time a UK government committed to 10 nuclear stations (Margaret Thatcher's in 1979) only one station was built, Sizewell, and then only after 15 years. If that were to happen again, carbon dioxide emissions would continue to increase. (34) Similarly, Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School suggests a “nightmare scenario” in which a commitment to new reactors leads to a stalling of renewables and combined heat and power stations, but nuclear power fails too leading to an inevitable rise in carbon emissions. (35)
Another former CORWM member, Professor Andrew Blowers of the Open University, warns that nuclear power provides the illusion of a solution. He says: “It is this business-as-usual aspect of nuclear that is its most insidious characteristic. … The danger is that by focusing on nuclear we refrain from recognizing the scale of the challenge we face and shirk our responsibility for dealing with it”. (36)
So nuclear power is probably the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions, but, because its contribution can only ever be small, we need other carbon abatement techniques if we are going to tackle climate change effectively. The trouble is, nuclear power could well damage our prospects of implementing those alternative carbon abatement techniques, and then, experience tells us there is a high risk that nuclear might not even be able to deliver the small contribution to reducing carbon emissions expected of it.
The Finnish experience
Very soon after the Finnish Parliament voted in 2002 to build a new reactor, Olkiluoto 3, according to Finland's former environment minister, Satu Hassi MEP, the country lost interest in alternative energy sources. (37) Measures promised in the climate report of 2001 were not implemented. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Finland agreed to keep its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels during the target period 2008-2012. After falling in 2001 and 2002, Finland’s carbon emissions have been rising. Emissions were around 9% above 1990 levels in 2002.
Measures will have to be implemented to address this issue given that business-as-usual projections by the government indicate further increases in greenhouse gases, reaching 15% above 1990 levels during the first target window. Now many people – industry and trade union leaders - who had argued that because of Finland’s Climate Change commitments a new nuclear power station was necessary, have been saying that the commitments Finland had signed up to at Kyoto were a big mistake, unfair to Finland, far too costly and, in practice, impossible to achieve. (38)
The International Energy Agency has highlighted the risk to Finland of relying on the new reactor to meet its climate commitments in case the operation of the plant is in any way delayed. (39) In fact construction of Olkiluoto 3 is now three years behind schedule and 50% over budget. (40) Its original target date for completion was 2009, so there is a danger that it will not be available in time to contribute to meeting Finland’s target.
A Finnish Government climate policy advisor now admits that Finland has “concentrated so much on nuclear [that it has] lost sight of everything else.”(41) It is beginning to look like we may be heading for exactly the same problem here in the UK.
Pete Roche, June 2009
References
(1) Blake, M. Bad Reactors: Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again. Washington Monthly Jan/Feb 2009
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html
(2) Frank Barnaby and James Kemp (Eds), Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, Oxford Research Group, March 2007.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf
(3) Liam Reid, “Ireland Joins Campaign Against Use of Nuclear Energy”, Irish Times, March 27, 2007.
See also: IOL, March 26, 2007
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070326224024783C351478
(4) Leading Article: There is still time to avoid this nuclear folly. Independent 24th May 2007
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2578450.ece
(5) Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a low carbon economy. DTI. February 2003
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf
(6) Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32
(7) Warren, A. Energy Efficiency Step Change? More like a soft shoe shuffle. Daily Telegraph 5th February 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3324265/Energy-efficiency-stepchange-More-like-a-soft-shoe-shuffle.html
See also “Why has Labour broken its promise not to build new nuclear power stations” by Andrew Warren, February 2008
http://www.ukace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=404&Itemid=45
(8) Hansard 31st March 2009 Column 1168
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090331/text/90331w0032.htm
(9) Adam, D. Nuclear power cannot tackle climate change, Guardian 17th January 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1688034,00.html
(10) Boardman, B. Home Truths: A Low Carbon Strategy to Reduce UK Housing Emissions by 80% by 2050, FoE (EWNI) and Co-operative Bank, November 2007.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/home_truths.pdf
(11) Be part of the great British refurb - to cut emissions and cut energy costs - Ed Miliband, DECC Press Release, February 12, 2009
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=392487&NewsAreaID=2
(12) Friends of the Earth Press Release, February 12, 2009.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_homes_12022009.html
(13) For a longer discussion see Great British Refurbishment, NuClear News No.4 March 2009.
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo4.pdf
(14) BERR Press Release 12th June 2008
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=370431&NewsAreaID=2
(15) Lovins, A. More Profit with Less Carbon, Scientific American, September 2005
http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf
(16) Vidal, J. Nuclear Plants Bloom, Guardian 12th August 2004,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1280884,00.html
See also: Lovins, A. Why Nuclear Power’s Failure in the Marketplace is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation and Climate Protection), Transcription of a presentation to the Nuclear Control Institute’s 20th Anniversary Conference, “Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other?,” Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.
http://www.nci.org/conf/lovins/lovins-transcript.htm
(17) Lovins, A.Wise up to nuclear folly, Green Future Magazine, March/April 2006
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/602479
(18) Adam, D. Nuclear power cannot tackle climate change. Guardian 17th January 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1688034,00.html
(19) The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy, UK Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
(20) Mitchell, C and Woodman, B. New Nuclear Power: Implications For A Sustainable Energy System, Warwick Business School for Green Alliance, April 2005.
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/NewNuclearPower.pdf
(21) Woolf, M. Don’t rush to nuclear power warns Blair’s environment adviser. Independent on Sunday, May 21, 2006.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article549529.ece
(22) Mitchell, C and Woodman, B. New Nuclear Power: Implications For A Sustainable Energy System, Warwick Business School for Green Alliance, April 2005.
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/NewNuclearPower.pdf
(23) Catherine Mitchell is now Professor of Energy Policy at Exeter University.
(24) Letter from Dr Catherine Mitchell, FT 30th May 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4015eb46-0e4b-11dc-8219-000b5df10621.html
(25) Mitchell, C. These Fossil Fools, Guardian 27th February 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/27/mitchell-fossil-fuels-labour-carbon
(26) The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy, UK Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
(27) Is nuclear the answer? Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/IsNuclearTheAnswer.pdf
(28) Porritt, J. Nuclear is the soft solution to tackling climate change. Guardian 5th July 2006
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1812324,00.html
(29) Leggett, J. Yes Minister, Nuclear’s best. Guardian, January 3, 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/03/politics.greenpolitics
(30) Environment Agency, Response to the DTI Consultation: The Energy Review, 2006.
(31) See http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/listing.cfm?journalistID=30
(32) Vaitheeswaren, V. Power to the People, Earthscan, 2005.
http://www.vijaytothepeople.com/
(33) For a historical look at the disastrous record of the UK nuclear industry see: Olaf Bayer and Chris Grimshaw, Broken Promises: Why the nuclear industry won’t deliver, Corporate Watch, July 2007
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2968
(34) MacKerron, G. Who Puts Up The Cash?, Observer, December 4, 2005.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1657015,00.html
(35) Nuclear power: unnecessary, dangerous and expensive. Conference held at Portcullis House, Westminster, on 28th November 2006.
http://www.nuclearpowernothanks.co.uk/unnecessary_dangerous_expensive.pdf
(36) David Elliott (Ed), Nuclear or Not?Does Nuclear Power Have A Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? Palgrave, 2007
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reviews/review02.php
(37) Harding, L. Caught between global warming and an energy crisis: Blair looks north for answers. Guardian 14th April 2006
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1753914,00.html
(38) Satu Hassi MEP, Finnish Environment Minister 1999 – 2002, Deciding on Nuclear, UK Parliamentary and Sustainable Energy Group (PRASEG) briefing November 2005,
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/praseg.pdf
See also “Finland: How Kyoto was used as an argument and what happened afterwards” October 18th 2005, Satu Hassi MEP,
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/kyoto181005.htm
and “Nuclear decision: myth and reality” speech by Satu Hassi MEP, 24th April 2006, Kiev.
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/kiev240406.htm
(39) International Energy Agency (2004), Energy Policies of IEA Countries; Finland 2003 Review.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/finland2003.pdf
(40) Gow, D. New-generation Finnish nuclear reactor hit by fourth delay. Guardian October 18, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower
(41) Blake, M. Bad Reactors: Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again. Washington Monthly Jan/Feb 2009
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html
Introduction
Jurgen Trittin – Former German Federal Minister for the Environment – describes calls for more nuclear power to tackle the problem of climate change as “fighting one risk with an even bigger one”. (2) And Environment Ministers from Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Austria agree saying the current debate about the use of nuclear energy as a solution to climate change is downplaying the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety issues. (3)
But, in fact the risk associated with building new reactors is much worse than simply increasing the risks associated with nuclear power. As The Independent highlighted in an editorial after the 2007 Energy White Paper, the danger is that nuclear investment will crowd out investment in renewables and undermine energy efficiency. (4) If we divert attention political effort and resources from the urgent programmes needed to effectively tackle climate change not only will we miss our targets, but as past experience suggests we could end up with carbon emissions still rising in 2025 because the nuclear programme has been hit by the problems and delays we have seen in the past and by then it will be too late to start implementing alternative strategies.
In February 2003 the Government itself had similar concerns. After the 2003 Energy White Paper (5) was published, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, said:
“It would have been foolish to announce …a new generation of nuclear power stations, because that would have guaranteed we would not make the necessary investments in energy efficiency and renewables.” (6)
The White Paper promised a "step change" in policies and programmes to deliver energy efficiency.
(7) Six years later we are still waiting for that step change.
The trouble is that electricity only provides around 18% of UK energy demand. (8) Transport and most space heating are provided by other sources of energy. Nuclear power provides around 20% of UK electricity, which only amounts to about 8% of total energy. Allowing for losses at the power station, nuclear power’s current contribution to the UK’s final energy consumption is only 3.6 % (80 TWh/y out of a final consumption of about 2,250 TWh/y). (9)
So it is absolutely essential that we make sure building new reactors does not hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the rest of the UK energy system providing the other 96% of final energy consumption.
The Domestic Sector
For example the domestic sector uses around 30% of the final energy consumed in the UK. If the UK Government is to meet its target to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, it will need to implement a set of policies which can cut emissions from the domestic sector by 80% by 2050. It should be doing this anyway to meet its legal obligations on fuel poverty. Every house will need excellent insulation and some form of Low and Zero Carbon Technology – microgeneration or community heating schemes. This means carrying out installations in all of the UK’s 25 million dwellings over the next 40 years or 625,000 dwellings every year between now and 2050. (10)
A long-awaited government consultation on energy efficiency published in February 2009 (11) – the Heat and Energy Saving Strategy (HESS) – sets out the need to reduce household carbon emissions to almost zero, in order for the UK to achieve its ambitious targets. It plans for reductions from households of a third by 2020, and by 2030 aims is for whole-house improvements to be available to every householder. Unfortunately, while the targets are ambitious, the document fails spell out a coherent strategy for achieving them. And much of what is planned won’t start until 2013. Friends of the Earth says targets won’t be achieved if we wait four years to begin. (12) It is difficult to avoid the conclusion the Government wants to get the nuclear programme started before it turns its attention to implementing a long overdue energy efficiency and microgeneration strategy. (13)
The contrast between the amount of Government effort, energy and funding which goes into promoting new nuclear reactors compared with energy efficiency and renewable energy is staggering. In June 2008, for example, the Government created the Office of Nuclear Development (OND), to build more effective cross-Government working on nuclear energy, and facilitate new nuclear investment in the UK. The OND has staff drawn from both the civil service and from industry, bringing together the relevant Government teams and resources to achieve its objectives. (14)
Opportunity Costs
Advocates of nuclear power argue that, because climate change is serious we need to promote renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power. This suggests we have infinite sources of finance to spend on energy projects, which is obviously nonsense. A scarcity of resources means anything we spend on nuclear power will not be available to spend on other projects.
If nuclear power diverts attention and resources from renewables and energy efficiency you might think this wouldn’t be too serious for the climate, as long as we are reducing carbon emissions somehow. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth, because nuclear power has such a high “opportunity cost”. The opportunity cost of any investment is the cost of forgoing the alternative outcomes that could have been purchased with the same money.
So, of course all investments will forego other opportunities. Tackling climate change is urgent, so we need to spend our limited resources as effectively as possible. In other words we need to maximize the carbon reductions we can achieve with every pound we spend. Investing in expensive nuclear power is just about the worst thing we can do. Energy efficiency can be up to seven times more cost effective. So investment in new reactors effectively worsens climate change because each pound spent is buying so much less ‘solution’ than if it were spent it on energy efficiency measures. (15)
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute says:-
"Each dollar invested in electric efficiency displaces nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide as a dollar invested in nuclear power, without any nasty side effects. If climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn't the solution. It's an expensive, one-size-fits-all technology that diverts money and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient alternatives." (16)
As a consequence investment in nuclear power will, in effect, worsen climate change because each pound spent is buying less solution than it would do if it were spent it on efficiency. (17)
Nuclear damages alternative carbon abatement techniques. OK, you might think, nuclear power might not be the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but as long as we spend enough we should still be able to tackle climate change.
Unfortunately, this also turns out to be wrong. Nuclear power’s contribution can only ever be really small, so we are going to have to develop energy efficiency and renewables, but we will be in real trouble if reactor construction programmes damage our efforts to develop alternative carbon abatement programmes. With nuclear power only providing around 4% of the UK’s final energy consumption, (18) we need to make absolutely sure that spending on building new reactors is not going to hinder our efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the rest of the UK energy system providing the other 96% of final energy consumption.
The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), (19) Warwick Business School (WBS) (20) and the Environment Agency (21) have all warned that a decision to proceed with new reactors could seriously undermine the development of a low carbon energy system.
Warwick Business School (WBS) argues that, far from complementing the necessary shift to a low carbon economy, the scale of the financial and institutional arrangements needed for new nuclear stations means they would fatally undermine the implementation of low carbon technologies and measures such as demand management, and therefore will ultimately undermine the shift to a true low carbon economy. (22) Dr Catherine Mitchell (23) of WBS, who was a member of the previous Energy Review team, says the 2007 White Paper has nothing to do with placing the UK on a path for carbon reductions that might meet the challenge of climate change. It has sealed the fate of the UK in not being able to meet its future carbon dioxide reduction targets. Nor will UK businesses be able to benefit from the enormous opportunities a sustainable non-nuclear future offers. (24)
“Britain has visionary goals”, says Mitchell. We have made commitments to the European Union to provide 15% of our total energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to cut projected energy demand by 20%. “If the UK meets these legally binding targets, there is no need for new nuclear or coal plants. Why does government - ie Treasury - policy seem to concentrate on technologies we don't need?” (25)
The UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) points out that, even with a doubling of nuclear capacity from current levels, cuts of at least 50% would still be needed from other measures if the UK is to meet its climate targets for 2050. (26) So it is important that our capacity to implement other carbon abatement measures is not damaged by any decision to go ahead with the construction of new reactors. SDC says 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. The Commission says a decision to proceed with a new reactor programme will require “a substantial slice of political leadership … political attention would shift, and in all likelihood undermine efforts to pursue a strategy based on energy efficiency, renewables and more CHP.” (27) Sir Jonathon Porritt, chair of the Commission, says nuclear power is already seriously diverting attention from the hard decisions required to solve the UK's energy challenges. (28)
Jeremy Leggett of Solar Century believes there has already been a deliberate focus on nuclear to the detriment of renewables. He was a member of the Renewables Advisory Board established in November 2002 to advise ministers on how to implement a plan, based on renewables and energy efficiency. By September 2003 the board’s industry members were already troubled by slow progress and issued a statement of concern. Leggett says he was warned that DTI officials would deliberately go slowly to keep hopes for nuclear alive and renewables would be teed up to fail. The slow-motion UK treatment of renewables since then, while renewables markets abroad have grown explosively, now makes it clear they were successful. (29)
In a memo to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee the Environment Agency expressed concern about the impact of investing billions of pounds in a new generation of reactors because it could siphon away resources from greener alternatives. Officials at the agency fear the energy review is biased towards the nuclear option. The Agency’s Energy Review submission says it is “…concerned about the displacement effect that a large programme of investment in one capital-intensive technology like nuclear may have on energy efficiency, CHP and renewable technologies ... There is a danger that an excessive focus on nuclear power and electricity supply will mean an insufficiently robust approach to all primary energy, including heat and transport”. (30)
And globally, decisions taken in the UK and the West can impact negatively on efforts to reduce carbon emissions around the globe. Vijay Vaitheeswaran, The Economist’s environment and energy correspondent (31), says:-
“Decisions taken in the next few years about energy in rich countries like Britain and the United States will shape investments made in energy infrastructure around the world for a generation or more. After all, nuclear and coal plants and oil refineries last for decades – and that sunk investment displaces or discourages nimbler, cleaner, and more distributed options like micropower. If we want to shift to a clean, secure, low-carbon energy system during this century, the time to start is now”. (32)
What if reactors fail?
If reactor construction fails to result in the replacement of existing capacity because of construction delays or public opposition, we could end up in a worse position than we are today. (33) Gordon MacKerron, former Chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), puts forward a worst-case scenario that following a commitment to nuclear new-build there is a sterilisation of non-nuclear investment and then the nuclear programme itself stalls. Such a scenario is far from a remote chance - the last time a UK government committed to 10 nuclear stations (Margaret Thatcher's in 1979) only one station was built, Sizewell, and then only after 15 years. If that were to happen again, carbon dioxide emissions would continue to increase. (34) Similarly, Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School suggests a “nightmare scenario” in which a commitment to new reactors leads to a stalling of renewables and combined heat and power stations, but nuclear power fails too leading to an inevitable rise in carbon emissions. (35)
Another former CORWM member, Professor Andrew Blowers of the Open University, warns that nuclear power provides the illusion of a solution. He says: “It is this business-as-usual aspect of nuclear that is its most insidious characteristic. … The danger is that by focusing on nuclear we refrain from recognizing the scale of the challenge we face and shirk our responsibility for dealing with it”. (36)
So nuclear power is probably the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions, but, because its contribution can only ever be small, we need other carbon abatement techniques if we are going to tackle climate change effectively. The trouble is, nuclear power could well damage our prospects of implementing those alternative carbon abatement techniques, and then, experience tells us there is a high risk that nuclear might not even be able to deliver the small contribution to reducing carbon emissions expected of it.
The Finnish experience
Very soon after the Finnish Parliament voted in 2002 to build a new reactor, Olkiluoto 3, according to Finland's former environment minister, Satu Hassi MEP, the country lost interest in alternative energy sources. (37) Measures promised in the climate report of 2001 were not implemented. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Finland agreed to keep its greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels during the target period 2008-2012. After falling in 2001 and 2002, Finland’s carbon emissions have been rising. Emissions were around 9% above 1990 levels in 2002.
Measures will have to be implemented to address this issue given that business-as-usual projections by the government indicate further increases in greenhouse gases, reaching 15% above 1990 levels during the first target window. Now many people – industry and trade union leaders - who had argued that because of Finland’s Climate Change commitments a new nuclear power station was necessary, have been saying that the commitments Finland had signed up to at Kyoto were a big mistake, unfair to Finland, far too costly and, in practice, impossible to achieve. (38)
The International Energy Agency has highlighted the risk to Finland of relying on the new reactor to meet its climate commitments in case the operation of the plant is in any way delayed. (39) In fact construction of Olkiluoto 3 is now three years behind schedule and 50% over budget. (40) Its original target date for completion was 2009, so there is a danger that it will not be available in time to contribute to meeting Finland’s target.
A Finnish Government climate policy advisor now admits that Finland has “concentrated so much on nuclear [that it has] lost sight of everything else.”(41) It is beginning to look like we may be heading for exactly the same problem here in the UK.
Pete Roche, June 2009
References
(1) Blake, M. Bad Reactors: Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again. Washington Monthly Jan/Feb 2009
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html
(2) Frank Barnaby and James Kemp (Eds), Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming, Oxford Research Group, March 2007.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf
(3) Liam Reid, “Ireland Joins Campaign Against Use of Nuclear Energy”, Irish Times, March 27, 2007.
See also: IOL, March 26, 2007
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw20070326224024783C351478
(4) Leading Article: There is still time to avoid this nuclear folly. Independent 24th May 2007
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2578450.ece
(5) Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future – Creating a low carbon economy. DTI. February 2003
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf
(6) Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32
(7) Warren, A. Energy Efficiency Step Change? More like a soft shoe shuffle. Daily Telegraph 5th February 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3324265/Energy-efficiency-stepchange-More-like-a-soft-shoe-shuffle.html
See also “Why has Labour broken its promise not to build new nuclear power stations” by Andrew Warren, February 2008
http://www.ukace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=404&Itemid=45
(8) Hansard 31st March 2009 Column 1168
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090331/text/90331w0032.htm
(9) Adam, D. Nuclear power cannot tackle climate change, Guardian 17th January 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1688034,00.html
(10) Boardman, B. Home Truths: A Low Carbon Strategy to Reduce UK Housing Emissions by 80% by 2050, FoE (EWNI) and Co-operative Bank, November 2007.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/home_truths.pdf
(11) Be part of the great British refurb - to cut emissions and cut energy costs - Ed Miliband, DECC Press Release, February 12, 2009
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=392487&NewsAreaID=2
(12) Friends of the Earth Press Release, February 12, 2009.
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_homes_12022009.html
(13) For a longer discussion see Great British Refurbishment, NuClear News No.4 March 2009.
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo4.pdf
(14) BERR Press Release 12th June 2008
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=370431&NewsAreaID=2
(15) Lovins, A. More Profit with Less Carbon, Scientific American, September 2005
http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf
(16) Vidal, J. Nuclear Plants Bloom, Guardian 12th August 2004,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1280884,00.html
See also: Lovins, A. Why Nuclear Power’s Failure in the Marketplace is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation and Climate Protection), Transcription of a presentation to the Nuclear Control Institute’s 20th Anniversary Conference, “Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One Without the Other?,” Washington, DC, April 9, 2001.
http://www.nci.org/conf/lovins/lovins-transcript.htm
(17) Lovins, A.Wise up to nuclear folly, Green Future Magazine, March/April 2006
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/602479
(18) Adam, D. Nuclear power cannot tackle climate change. Guardian 17th January 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1688034,00.html
(19) The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy, UK Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
(20) Mitchell, C and Woodman, B. New Nuclear Power: Implications For A Sustainable Energy System, Warwick Business School for Green Alliance, April 2005.
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/NewNuclearPower.pdf
(21) Woolf, M. Don’t rush to nuclear power warns Blair’s environment adviser. Independent on Sunday, May 21, 2006.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article549529.ece
(22) Mitchell, C and Woodman, B. New Nuclear Power: Implications For A Sustainable Energy System, Warwick Business School for Green Alliance, April 2005.
http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Publications/NewNuclearPower.pdf
(23) Catherine Mitchell is now Professor of Energy Policy at Exeter University.
(24) Letter from Dr Catherine Mitchell, FT 30th May 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4015eb46-0e4b-11dc-8219-000b5df10621.html
(25) Mitchell, C. These Fossil Fools, Guardian 27th February 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/27/mitchell-fossil-fuels-labour-carbon
(26) The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy, UK Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf
(27) Is nuclear the answer? Sustainable Development Commission, March 2006
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/IsNuclearTheAnswer.pdf
(28) Porritt, J. Nuclear is the soft solution to tackling climate change. Guardian 5th July 2006
http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1812324,00.html
(29) Leggett, J. Yes Minister, Nuclear’s best. Guardian, January 3, 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/03/politics.greenpolitics
(30) Environment Agency, Response to the DTI Consultation: The Energy Review, 2006.
(31) See http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/listing.cfm?journalistID=30
(32) Vaitheeswaren, V. Power to the People, Earthscan, 2005.
http://www.vijaytothepeople.com/
(33) For a historical look at the disastrous record of the UK nuclear industry see: Olaf Bayer and Chris Grimshaw, Broken Promises: Why the nuclear industry won’t deliver, Corporate Watch, July 2007
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2968
(34) MacKerron, G. Who Puts Up The Cash?, Observer, December 4, 2005.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1657015,00.html
(35) Nuclear power: unnecessary, dangerous and expensive. Conference held at Portcullis House, Westminster, on 28th November 2006.
http://www.nuclearpowernothanks.co.uk/unnecessary_dangerous_expensive.pdf
(36) David Elliott (Ed), Nuclear or Not?Does Nuclear Power Have A Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? Palgrave, 2007
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reviews/review02.php
(37) Harding, L. Caught between global warming and an energy crisis: Blair looks north for answers. Guardian 14th April 2006
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1753914,00.html
(38) Satu Hassi MEP, Finnish Environment Minister 1999 – 2002, Deciding on Nuclear, UK Parliamentary and Sustainable Energy Group (PRASEG) briefing November 2005,
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/praseg.pdf
See also “Finland: How Kyoto was used as an argument and what happened afterwards” October 18th 2005, Satu Hassi MEP,
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/kyoto181005.htm
and “Nuclear decision: myth and reality” speech by Satu Hassi MEP, 24th April 2006, Kiev.
http://www.satuhassi.net/puheet/kiev240406.htm
(39) International Energy Agency (2004), Energy Policies of IEA Countries; Finland 2003 Review.
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/finland2003.pdf
(40) Gow, D. New-generation Finnish nuclear reactor hit by fourth delay. Guardian October 18, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/18/nuclearpower
(41) Blake, M. Bad Reactors: Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again. Washington Monthly Jan/Feb 2009
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)