nuclear power

2005 Energy Review - Blair sinks renewables and spins nuclear

Last edited 29 November 2005 at 9:00am
Publication date: 
29 November, 2005

Summary

The nuclear industry is portraying new nuclear power stations as the solution to climate change and security of energy supply. In reality, nuclear power will fail to deliver significant CO2 cuts, be hugely expensive, create a new target for terrorism, is unreliable and a finite source of energy.

Download the report:

Nuclear power - increasing carbon emissions

Posted by bex — 11 November 2005 at 9:00am - Comments
Sellafield

Nuclear power has justifiably had a bad press in recent years. It's expensive to the point of being uneconomic without massive government subsidies, produces dangerous radioactive wastes, and the consequences of a serious accident or terrorist attack on a nuclear plant could be devastating.

Recently the nuclear industry has seized on concerns over climate change and high oil prices to get nuclear power back on to the British political agenda. Tony Blair is being urged to allow construction of 10 new nuclear power stations. This would provide a lifeline for the beleaguered nuclear industry, which is arguing that new reactors would help the government as it struggles to keep its promise to reduce emissions of CO2 (the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for climate change) by 20% by 2010. The industry claims this is an obvious 'solution', because nuclear reactors emit virtually no CO2 at the point of electricity generation.

Tony Blair's crimes against the climate

Last edited 11 November 2005 at 9:00am
Publication date: 
11 November, 2005

Summary

Climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet. It is caused by the world's dependence on dirty fuels like oil and coal. To drastically reduce climate changing CO2 emissions, a switch from inefficient, dirty and dangerous energy sources, such as coal and nuclear power, to decentralised, clean energy systems is urgently needed. Tony Blair talks big on climate change, but his actions do not match his words. In fact his actions are now making things worse, not better.

Download the report:

Ditch the dodgy nukes!

Posted by bex — 8 November 2005 at 9:00am - Comments
Solar panels beside Sizewell B Nuclear Plant

Solar panels beside Sizewell B Nuclear Plant

No new nuclear power: Greenpeace submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

Last edited 10 October 2005 at 8:00am
Publication date: 
10 October, 2005

Summary

In detailed evidence to the Committee, Greenpeace has shown that a new reactor programme would: be an expensive gamble using an untried reactor design; increase the UK's nuclear waste stockpile by 400%; take too long to build to reduce CO2 emissions in line with the government's 2020 target; and provide more targets for terrorist attacks.

Download the report:

Power to the people: decentralised energy not new nuclear plants

Posted by bex — 10 October 2005 at 8:00am - Comments

Solar panels in Germany

With the pressure on from the nuclear lobby to build a series of ten new reactors, the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons is holding an inquiry into future electricity production in the UK. The inquiry, Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear Power, Renewables and Climate Change, is being seen by many as the preliminary to an expected energy review in early 2006 which might result in proposals for new nuclear power plants.

Proliferation - where civil and military nuclear ambitions form a critical mass

Last edited 7 September 2005 at 8:00am
Publication date: 
7 September, 2005

Greenpeace opposes nuclear power not only because it is an expensive and hazardous way to produce electricity but also because it is also a key way for countries to gain access to the technology and materials needed to develop nuclear weapons.

Summary

Download the report:

Greenpeace response to the CoRWM's report: 'How should the UK manage radioactive waste?'

Last edited 1 September 2005 at 8:00am
Publication date: 
20 June, 2005

Summary

This Greenpeace response to options for dealing with the UK's nuclear waste focuses on key issues which we believe CoRWM must involve itself with as it proceeds on the current discussion on radioactive waste management. These are the:

Download the report:

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Greenpeace submission to EU Competition Commission

Last edited 1 September 2005 at 8:00am
Publication date: 
1 September, 2005

Summary

Greenpeace's submission to the European Union's Competition Commission raises key issues such as:

  • Can the NDA be classed as a non-government body if it is benefiting from the profits from commercial nuclear activities?
  • Which organisation - BNFL or the NDA - will make the final decision on whether an operation is classed as commercial and how will the monies be allocated?
Download the report:

Briefing on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Last edited 1 September 2005 at 8:00am
Publication date: 
1 September, 2005

Summary

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was established on 1st April 2005. It has taken over ownership all of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) sites, as well as those of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). The original focus for the NDA, as written in the White Paper 2002 in which it was first proposed, was that it should be "squarely on [dealing with] the nuclear legacy" .

Download the report: