Nuclear

UK nuclear capacity in meltdown

Posted by jossc — 6 October 2008 at 4:59pm - Comments

Hartlepool nuclear plant
Hartlepool nuclear plant - completely out of action

Should you happen to find yourself debating with a passionate supporter of nuclear power about how to supply our country's future energy needs, the odds are that pretty early in the debate they'll play their trump card - namely that only nuclear can supply the 'base load' necessary to ensure that the lights stay on throughout the long, dark British winter. Hang the dangers of radioactivity, forget the ruinous expense, they'll say - we can't do without nuclear power.

Turkish investors turn away from nuclear

Posted by bex — 30 September 2008 at 12:07pm - Comments

Interesting news from our colleagues in Turkey, where 37 activists from Greenpeace and Global Action Group were arrested after protesting against nuclear energy last week.

The Turkish government has been busily trying to find a supplier for its first (of many, potentially) nuclear plant. But the plans have been stopped dead by... investors. Of the six companies supposedly interested in the contract, only one made a bid. And, without competition, Turkish law prevents the government from issuing the tender for a new nuclear plant.

Read more on Nuclear Reaction

Rhetoric vs reality

Posted by bex — 24 September 2008 at 10:44am - Comments

Yesterday: "I want British companies and British workers to seize the opportunity and lead the world in the transformation to a low carbon economy and I believe that we can create in modern green manufacturing and service one million new jobs" - Gordon Brown.

Today: British Energy is sold to French nuclear company EDF for £12.5 billion, exporting thousands of potential UK jobs to France, dealing a hammer blow to our chances of meeting our legally binding Renewables Obligation. 

The truth about the energy gap: a response to John Hutton

Posted by bex — 22 September 2008 at 10:21am - Comments

John Hutton at the Labour Party Conference 2007

John Hutton committing to take action on climate change at the 2007 Labour Party Conference © Rose / Greenpeace

"No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights," said Business Secretary John Hutton (pictured above, proving he really has heard of climate change, honest) today.

Bearing in mind the findings of leading energy consultants Pöyry (pdf) that we don't need new nuclear or new coal to keep the lights on - we just need the government to meet its own, existing targets for energy efficiency and renewables - he might better have said "no vision plus no guts equals no chance of averting catastrophic climate change". Which at least has some basis in fact.

11,000 nuclear reactors by 2100?

Posted by bex — 17 September 2008 at 12:27pm - Comments

Oh dear. From Nuclear Reaction:

Yesterday we brought you the fantastical tale of the Brazilian government announcing their ambition to build 50 new nuclear reactors by 2050. No sooner had the disbelieving laughter died down here at Nuclear Reaction, along came the World Nuclear Association (WNA) with an amazing fantasy of its own. Wait until you see this - it's amazing. There are comedians who would kill for this ability to make people laugh...

More cracks appearing in nuclear waste plans

Posted by jamie — 26 August 2008 at 3:41pm - Comments

Some unsettling news appeared in the Independent over the weekend, which revealed that an Environment Agency report has said that containers at Sellafield (where most of the UK's waste is stored) may not be as stable as was thought. The document effectively destroys Britain's already shaky disposal plans just as ministers are preparing an expansion of nuclear power.

Syndicate content

Follow Greenpeace UK