It’s time to stand up to the energy giants
It’s time to stand up to the energy giants Guardian UK, by John Sauven 13 July 2009 Renewable energy will never take off as long as the industry is dominated by European utilities Against the backdrop of the worldwide economic downturn, it is ironic that the area often said to have the least business certainty, the renewables sector, is one of the few success stories. Globally this industry is bucking the trends, creating millions of new green jobs, increasing countries’ energy independence and reducing climate-changing emissions…………………………Not so much the “voice of British business” as the voice of French and German energy monopolies, for too long E.ON, RWE and EDF have dictated the terms of the British energy debate. Today’s CBI report advocating that Britain scale back its renewable ambitions yet further is just the latest tactic by these utilities to shaft British business efforts in clean tech out of fear of new competition and the threat posed to their “business as usual” approach. EDF and E.ON admit they oppose ambition on renewables in case they undermine the economic case for the nuclear power stations they want to build. These arguments are now parroted verbatim by the CBI.
t is no coincidence that Germany and Spain, which have shut the door on new nuclear power, have invested most in renewables and seen their green industries rocket. Spain now generates as much as 40% of its electricity from wind power and studies show the investment in renewables has lowered wholesale electricity prices in Spain by more than the cost of the incentive they used to kickstart the industry. Germany has created almost a quarter of a million new green jobs in renewables as a whole and £8.5bn a year for its economy from wind industry sales alone.While other countries got ahead of the UK in green tech, in a textbook case of the power of special interests operating in Whitehall, energy officials in Britain lobbied together with two German energy giants and the French state-owned atomic industry to systematically undermine and sabotage UK efforts on renewables…………………………….anti-wind nimby groups with links to giant PR firms were set up to whip up anti-renewable hysteria with little transparency and much suspicion about who was really behind them, especially given that national government polling shows that 80% of people support wind power. Plans were even announced to knock down a wind farm to make way for a nuclear plant.
It’s time to stand up to the energy giants | John Sauven | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Another Green World: Nuclear power? No point, says new report
Nuclear power? No point, says new report
Another Green World 12 july 09 In Nuclear Power? No Point! the Green Party’s spokesperson on trade and industry, Darren Johnson AM, reviews recent developments and argues that:a.. Nuclear power provides less than 4% of UK energy – which is far less than could be saved by energy-efficiency measures that would cut people’s fuel bills.b.. New nuclear stations will not help the fight against climate change because major CO2 reductions are needed in the next ten years. New nuclear power stations could not be built fast enough.c.. Massive investment in renewables could deliver the necessary short-term CO2 cuts – but “feeding cash to the nuclear delusion” could help starve the renewables industry of some of the investment and skilled personnel it needs to grow rapidly.d.. The nuclear industry’s current financial problems cast serious doubt on its ability to deliver new power stations anyway. Darren Johnson, who is currently chair of the London Assembly and Green Party candidate for Lewisham Deptford, said today:
“The industry that was going to produce electricity ‘too cheap to meter’ has landed us with massive costs for handling its dangerous waste. Now the nuclear industry can’t even give us a reliable quote for the cost of a power station. The current projects in Finland and France are experiencing safety concerns, long delays and big overspends.
“There’s no point expecting nuclear to solve the climate crisis, because new stations couldn’t be built fast enough to help achieve the big CO2 reductions we need to make in the next ten years – which mature renewables could deliver.
“There is no point even considering nuclear power, because demand-reduction measures could easily save far more power than nuclear could generate. And the latest studies argue convincingly that green energy sources with a European smart grid could provide all the power we need.”
Another Green World: Nuclear power? No point, says new report
Energy risk –
French power supply problems could hit UK COMMODITY RISK MANAGEMENT & TRADING Energy Risk News 10 July 2009 : London Unusually high temperatures last month put a third of France’s nuclear power stations out of action, forcing the country to import electricity from the UK. According to Chris Bowden, CEO of energy and carbon advisors Utilyx, the UK may face similar crises in years to come.Bowden says higher temperatures in summer periods can increase UK demand significantly because of increased use of air-conditioning. This, along with accidental and planned power plant outages, could “dramatically reduce” supply margin.”The UK must not become complacent and believe that France’s crisis call for electricity is limited to France alone,” says Bowden. “Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s total electricity generation so our own security of supply could also be at risk during hot weather.”
Energy risk – – risk management, trading, finance, commodities in the global energy market
‘Let’s take steps to bring green choices within the reach of everyone’
From The Times (UK)
July 8, 2009
On day three of our series on the low-carbon economy, Conservative politician Zac Goldsmith tells Robin Pagnamenta that private enterprise has a key role to play
Which concrete measures can governments introduce to support the growth of a low-carbon economy in Britain?
Many green choices are still the preserve of the committed or the well-off. With the right incentives and signals, an intelligent government could make pollution and waste a liability and at the same time bring those green choices within reach of us all. Until that happens, green will always be a marginal niche.
Broadly, the Government needs to put a price on pollution, waste and the use of scarce resources, and to invest proceeds into the alternatives. For example, if a new tax is introduced – at the point of purchase – on the “dirtiest” cars, it should be used to bring down the cost of the “cleanest” cars.
That would clean up the car fleet very quickly, and without punishing people for decisions they’ve already taken.
We also need to make better use of subsidies. In my view they should exist to stimulate new technologies and to fund research not yet attractive to the market. The German system of feed-in tariffs is one way we could support green energy technologies, by shortening the payback time………
……………… Should nuclear energy play a role in the low-carbon economy?
If it was up to me, I wouldn’t block nuclear per se, but I would absolutely oppose any use of taxpayer funds to prop it up. That includes dealing with waste, security concerns and so on. I don’t believe it’s right for the Government to use taxpayer funds to support old technologies, no matter how powerful their lobby groups. The job of the Government is to provide energy solutions at the lowest cost and in the cleanest way. That will never, in my view, be nuclear.
Don’t forget there has never been a nuclear power plant that wasn’t constructed and run at the public’s expense. In a free market, nuclear wouldn’t exist. On that basis I would like to see subsidies diverted elsewhere, and, logically, that would mean nuclear has almost certainly had its day.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6665944.ece
Fears for safety as nuclear watchdog hires staff from firms pitching to build reactors
Fears for safety as nuclear watchdog hires staff from firms pitching to build reactors The Guardian Tim Webb 26 June 2009
The Nuclear Installations Inspec
torate is recruiting more than a dozen project managers to speed up its review of new reactor designs – even though they work for the companies hoping to build them.
The Guardian has learnt that the government has approached companies including the US groups Bechtel and CH2M Hill, as well as the UK’s Amec, to fill the senior posts. The companies involved are eager to secure lucrative contracts to help build the UK’s first new reactors for decades.
Government and industry sources admitted the secondments posed potential conflict of interest problems.
It is also understood that the inspectorate has recruited technical staff from Areva,…………………………There are concerns that the potential conflicts of interest could compromise the safety of the new nuclear reactors if the companies helping the inspectorate have a vested interest in approving their design.
Revealed: catalogue of atomic leaks
Revealed: catalogue of atomic leaks The Fuardian Terry Macalister and Rob Edwards 21 June 09
The scale of safety problems inside Britain’s nuclear power stations has been revealed for the first time in a secret report obtained by the Observer that shows more than 1,750 leaks, breakdowns or other “events” over the past seven years.
The damning document, written by the government’s chief nuclear inspector, Mike Weightman, and released under the Freedom of Information Act, raises serious questions about the dangers of expanding the industry with a new generation of atomic plants. And it came as the managers of the UK’s biggest plant, Sellafield, admitted they had finally halted a radioactive leak many believe has been going on for 50 years.
The report discloses that between 2001-08 there were 1,767 safety incidents across Britain’s nuclear plants. About half were subsequently judged by inspectors as serious enough “to have had the potential to challenge a nuclear safety system”. They were “across all areas of existing nuclear plant”, including Sellafield in Cumbria and Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, says Weightman, chief inspector of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII).
Revealed: catalogue of atomic leaks | Environment | The Observer
10 heroes who nailed Ministry of Defence lies over atomic blasts
10 heroes who nailed Ministry of Defence lies over atomic blasts Mirror.co.uk 7/06/2009 These are the 10 heroes whose evidence finally nailed the lies of the Ministry of Defence. Their cases were selected as examples that could be tested to see if a full trial of the facts was possible. All were sent to the Pacific to watch the atomic blasts in the 1950s. Four have died of cancer and another of a combination of illnesses. The survivors are all crippled by horrific medical conditions……………………
10 heroes who nailes Ministry of Defence lies over atomic blasts – mirror.co.uk
The Nuclear Begging Bowl
The Nuclear Begging Bowl JO ABBESS June 7th, 2009 “……………..In the United States they call this process a “bailout”, making it sound like a worthy rescue of a valued affiliate. In the United Kingdom, it’s called “public support”. It all amounts to the same thing : tax revenue from the public thrown at the private corporations……………
………………….it is unlikely that EdF will be able to persuade investors to put their money behind New Nuclear without some kind of pledge from the UK Government on a price guarantee for the electricity that will eventually (with luck) be generated.
And yet, at present, it is highly unlikely that such a pledge could be extracted, what with the whole Government in turmoil, and with international negotiations on Climate Change set to be turbulent and impactful on Energy provision (in December 2009 in Copenhagen).
Atomic tests ruling is ‘too late’
Atomic tests ruling is ‘too late’ BBC News 6 June 09
An atomic test veteran from Manchester said a ruling by the High Court to give ex-servicemen the right to sue the British government has come too late.
Peter Gilbody, 70, of Withington, was involved in clearing up nuclear bomb debris in Australia in 1958. He has since been diagnosed with skin cancer.
About 1,000 servicemen blame their ill health on Britain’s involvement in nuclear tests in the South Pacific……………………..
He said: “I used to bury radioactive material… I had a mate who washed down our vehicles and planes and he got it terrible.
“Widows have lost husbands very early in life, children have got leukaemia.
“Compensation is a bit late now, it won’t do me any good now will it?”
In January the MoD tried to halt compensation claims, arguing that they had been made far too late to go ahead.
Many atomic veterans are terminally ill and since the original hearing seven claimants have died.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Merseyside | Atomic tests ruling is ‘too late’
Court says nuclear test soldiers can sue Britain
Court says nuclear test soldiers can sue Britain
June 06, 2009
THE British High Court has concluded thousands of Australian service men and their families were treated as nuclear ‘guinea pigs’, giving them the right to sue the British Government.
The bombshell decision found the British Ministry of Defence did have a case to answer that it unfairly exposed servicemen from Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Fiji to atomic fallout during the series of tests in South Australia, Western Australia and off the eastern coast on atolls in the Pacific during the 1950s.
The sensational ruling was greeted with cheers from many veterans in Room 73 of the London Royal Courts of Justice where for five years 1000 of them have fought to prove they and their families had suffered because of radioactive exposure.
The case paves the way for millions of dollars in compensation to now be offered to the servicemen exposed on land, air and sea who were directed into mushroom clouds to test the effects of the weaponry on the human body.
The Australian Federal Government had stalled for years on whether to pay compensation, citing it was awaiting for a ruling to be made by the British High Court since the tests were done by the British Government.
AdelaideNow… Court says nuclear test soldiers can sue Britain
Justification of new nuclear power in the UK
Justification of new nuclear power in the UK By: Paul Dorfman 26 May 09 “……………………………………There are real problems – for example, information on how radiation-waste and radiation spent fuel from any new nuclear build could possibly be managed, or the health impact of radiation-discharges will not be fully assessed until after the “Justification” decision is taken.
“Justification” of new-build nuclear power will be decided even before the new reactor design is assessed.Also there are significant data gaps in the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) Application on which “Justification” is built.
There is simply not enough information presented by the NIA in their application to make a rational decision about whether new nuclear build is warranted or not.
For such a significant process, the Justification timeline is short, and decisions will take place in closed session – far from public scrutiny.
The Nuclear Consultation Group believe that it is unfair that that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is to be the Justifying Authority – the person who makes the final decision – this is because he has already expressed clear support for new nuclear reactors.Given that Justification, once finalised, may foreclose on any future discussion on issues crucial to nuclear power, it is vital that this process is opened up in order to allow for meaningful and realistic examination of evidence a public forum…………………………..
Village’s fury over radioactive waste plan
Village’s fury over radioactive waste plan
Whitehaven News By Andrew Clarke
13 May 2009
CONTROVERSIAL proposals to bury radioactive waste in Keekle have met with opposition from councillors. French-owned company Sita UK plans to drill 24 exploratory boreholes at Keekle Head to see if the area is suitable for disposing of very low-level radioactive waste.
However, councillors from Frizington, which neighbours the potential site, have voiced their concerns.
“We have had enough rubbish dumped on us,” said parish council chairman Peter Connolly.
“We unanimously agree that we don’t want the proliferation of any waste, in particular low-level nuclear waste.”
Coun Tim Knowles gave Cumbria County Council’s view to the parish council meeting, held on Monday.
“The council is strongly against the dispersal of nuclear waste that I believe these boreholes relate to
Britain’s farmers still restricted by Chernobyl nuclear fallout
Britain’s farmers still restricted by Chernobyl nuclear fallout The Guardian by Terry Macalister and Helen Carter 12 may 09 Environmentalists say controls on 369 farms highlight danger of plans to build nuclear plants around UK Nearly 370 farms in Britain are still restricted in the way they use land and rear sheep because of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power station accident 23 years ago, the government has admitted……………………………..
Critics of the nuclear industry expressed alarm at the latest numbers, which they believed would increase public unease about the highly toxic and long-term impact of radioactivity.
David Lowry, a member of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates, said the figures demonstrated the “unforgiving hazards” of radioactivity dispersed into the environment, whether from Chernobyl in Ukraine, thousands of miles away and 23 years ago, or over decades from the Faslane nuclear submarine base in Scotland, as revealed by the Guardian last month…………………………
…………Revelations about the continuing impact of the Chernobyl accident come weeks after three different sites were bought in auction by EDF and other power companies for building new atomic plants in Britain.
Britain’s farmers still restricted by Chernobyl nuclear fallout | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Safety threat to planned nuclear power stations
Safety threat to planned nuclear power stations Devastating blow as leaked letter shows regulator could pull plug on proposed UK reactors because of ‘design errors’
THE INDEPENDENT By Geoffrey Lean, 10 May 09
Britain’s plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations have been thrown into jeopardy by startling official safety fears. The nuclear regulatory body in Finland, where the first of the reactors is being built, has taken the extraordinary step of threatening to halt its construction because it has not been satisfied that key safety systems will work.
STUK, the Finnish government’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, says that “evident errors” have not been corrected more than a year after it raised its concerns and condemns the “lack of professional knowledge” of people working for the firm responsible for its design and construction.
This is an unexpected, and potentially devastating, blow because one of the main selling points of the new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) has been that its safety systems will work far better than those in current reactors. It is particularly important that they do because, as The Independent on Sunday reported in February, they will produce many times as much radiation that could be rapidly released in the event of an accident…………………………….
Safety threat to planned nuclear power stations – Green Living, Environment – The Independent
‘Useless’ Trident is an obscene waste of money
“………………………..In the bloated, overfunded world of nuclear “defence” (now there’s an oxymoron if every I heard one) plans to replace the Trident nuclear-armed submarine fleet continue apace, as if nothing has happened.The current estimate for replacing Trident starts at about £20 billion (the government figure) and rises to £75bn (the figure from groups such as Greenpeace). And yes, I did say “billion” with a “B”, not million.The government is absolutely committed to replacing Trident. Supposing we were all starving in the gutter, the government would still press ahead…………………….
The fact of the matter is this. Trident is useless, in the sense that it can never be used. If it was used, the retaliation would be so massive that it is unlikely there would be any life left on the planet afterwards.
The world has enough nuclear weapons to kill every person on the planet. I guess they want to allow for the possibility of resurrection, because the level of overkill is such that we have enough nuclear weapons to kill every person on the planet not just once, but several times over……………………in the current financial climate, the idea of spending such enormous sums of taxpayers’ money on replacing Trident is simply obscene.
‘Useless’ Trident is an obscene waste of money – The Inverness Courier
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (156)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 