Greenpeace wins nuclear consultation case

Published: 15 February 2007  12:00 PM
Source: The Engineer Online

Greenpeace has won a High Court case against the government, following the government's decision to back a new generation of nuclear power stations, a key element of its Energy Review.

A High Court judged ruled that that the consultation process undertaken last year was ‘seriously flawed’ and ‘procedurally unfair’ and granted Greenpeace an order quashing the review as ‘unlawful’.

'This was a comment on a political process and not of the feasibility of nuclear power,’ said Dr Mark Levy, KNOO Consortium Research Manager, Imperial College London. ‘It is vital that the public should be an informed customer and that long term decisions should be made with public backing. This will only happen if all sides of the argument engage in full, frank and open discussion.

’The debate of new nuclear build still has legs, however if we continue to run away from a decision, we will become more and more reliant upon electricity imports, which is a situation that is not in our nations best interests.'

CBI Director-General Richard Lambert added: 'Energy security is one of the most vital issues facing the country so proper consultation is vital, but so too is early action. One third of our electricity generation needs to be replaced by 2020, so anything that delays the government in providing a clear framework for potential investors risks causing energy shortages that could cost the economy dear. It is not clear how we can meet both our energy needs and our climate change obligations without a continuing role for nuclear power.'

The government remains committed to including nuclear power, saying it has a role to play in securing energy security and cutting emissions. ‘This is why we will press on with publication of the Energy White Paper and why we are confident in the strength of our arguments to engage in further consultation,’ said the DTI in a statement.

Comments

Dr Gerry Wolff's claims are simply part of a misinformation campaign: http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm In reality, CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy! Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts. Inefficient According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power. Expensive According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar. Environmental impact Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions! Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx Michael Stuart http://www.na-ygn.org/
Michael Stuart: 20 Apr 2007

Regarding your report "Greenpeace wins nuclear consultation case" (2007-02-15), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the UK because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power. I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world. CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe. In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time. Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net. Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm. The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm. Sincerely, Dr Gerry Wolff
Dr Gerry Wolff: 16 Feb 2007

• Jobs Home
• Search
• Jobs by Email
• My Profile
• Agency A-Z
• Employer A-Z

Miscellanies

• About Us
• Contact Us
• Site Map
• Advertising
• T&C's
• Privacy Policy

• Where's e4engineering?
• Engineeringtalk - Engineering product news

Quick Search Form