Thursday, April 27, 2006

Nuclear Waste Sites Vulnerable to Attack

group of senior nuclear security experts have warned about the danger of a massive release of radiation form Britain’s nuclear waste sites, saying that they are vulnerable to attack and the storage arrangements are unacceptable.


The warning is in a report presented to the government appointed Committee on Radioactive Waste Management which is due to make recommendations about the future of Britain’s nuclear waste in July.

According to the BBC, signatories to the report include:
  • Dr Gordon Thompson of US Institute for Resource and Security Studies
  • OFNS Office for Civil Nuclear Security, linked to the UK intelligence services
  • BNFL British Nuclear Fuels
  • Nuclear physicist Professor Frank Barnaby
One such vulnerable site is Facility B215 at Sellafield in Cumbria, with 21 tanks of high level radioactive waste, containing 88x the amount of Caesium 137 released in the Chernobyl disaster.

In an interview for the World at One programme, Dr Gordon Thompson of US Institute for Resource and Security Studies said, “The amounts of radioactive material that we’re talking about are at a magnitude where they represent a strategic threat to the UK and to surrounding countries. By releasing large amounts of radioactive material attackers could render large land areas uninhabitable for periods of decades or longer and could wreak great economic and psychological damage."

Regarding the probability of a 9/11 style attack he added, “It is more likely that an attacker would use a smaller aircraft equipped with explosives, because that can be precision targeted and will produce a more focused form of damage. An attack of that nature could with high probability penetrate the tanks and damage the cooling systems associated with them.”

Signatory nuclear physicist Frank Barnaby, consultant to Oxford Research Group, said, “These are obvious targets for a terrorist group. They are unacceptably vulnerable. A successful terrorist attack on the high level waste tanks could result worldwide in about 210 000 fatal cancers per tank.”

There was no comment from BNFL or OFNS.

Bob Jones, head of operations at Sellafield tried to reassure us with a description of the precautions curently in place: “We have a number of different layers of security… which involve people and also involve planned design.”

To this, Patrick Mercer (Shadow Security minister for Homeland Security) added: “In my visits to Sellafield I have been very impressed by their forethought and their way that they’ve tried to design, as far as they can, the siting of the tanks to make it difficult to attack. It would be impossible of course to make it completely proof. But, as we’ve heard in the report, there is no government programme which is designed to deal with this.”

Vitrification, converting to a form of glass, is the main route to stabilising the liquid waste, but this is not due to be completed until 2020.

Feeling reassured?

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ;

Biomass renewable heat - the way ahead is still slow and tortured

A new 5 year capital grant scheme for biomass boilers, with funding of £10 - £15 million over the first two years and a second round of the Bio-energy Infrastructure Scheme, with funding at, or close to the level, proposed by the Task Force is part of the Government's Response to the Biomass Task Force Report announced today by Defra.



The Task Force's recommendation that the Government should not pursue a renewable heat obligation which was attacked by many groups, will be considered further and the evidence reviewed.

Other features include:
  • Agreement in principle to support for energy crops under the new Rural Development Programme for England to be introduced in 2007, closely integrated with bioenergy market development
  • Announcement of the Forestry Commission's new Biomass Energy Centre as a major new hub for bioenergy advice and best practice for industry and the public
  • Further measures to integrate environmental assessment in the planning of energy crop development
  • Government leadership through public procurement, including the commitment to map the potential use of biomass across the main procuring departments of the Government estate
  • Working with Regional Development Agencies and other organisations to ensure effective, coordinated mechanisms for delivery of policy and advice
  • Action already taken to improve the Renewables Obligation
  • Use of the planning system to stimulate renewables development, including our support for planning authorities applying a minimum percentage of renewable energy in new developments
  • Action to address regulatory barriers identified by the Task Force and to develop standards to improve efficacy and confidence in biomass
  • Support for the EU Biomass Action Plan and agreement on UK membership of the Global Bioenergy Partnership from its launch in May 2006.
  • The introduction of new Building Regulations, from April 2006, with new procedures and tougher standards which will encourage the use of Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) systems, such as biomass
The Renewable Energy Association calls the proposals a missed opportunity.

Graham Meeks, Head of Heat at the REA, said: "Eighteen months after the Government launched the Biomass Task Force we are still waiting for new measures to drive real growth in the market for renewable heat supplies. The opportunity to deliver real progress in tackling climate change, lift households out of fuel poverty and create sustainable jobs in the rural economy is still being squandered.”

Graham Meeks called on the Government to move quickly to implement an overarching policy that directly rewards the environmental, security and social benefits of supplying heat from renewable sources.

"Biomass can meet 7% of UK demand for heat, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and cut CO2 emissions by over 20 million tonnes each year.

"The Government has used obligations on suppliers to stimulate demand in the renewable electricity and transport fuels markets. So it seems bizarre that we are still waiting for the same level of incentive for heat.

"The measures outlined today, including a new capital grant programme, will certainly help the biomass industry. But they will have only a limited impact in delivering the sustained, long-term industry growth Government should be looking for."

>> The Strategy

>> The Biomass Task Force report

Barrages, lagoons, or marine current turbines?

A Severn barrage is proposed by the Welsh Assembly to generate 6% of our electricity. But conservationists argue that a lagoon is better.



Today's You and Yours on BBC R4 exmained the pros and cons, with a debate between greens, WAG's Andrew Davies and renewables academic Dave Elliot of the OU, who argued for marine current turbines.

Listen to it here. Scroll to half way along the programme.

Speakers suggested that lagoons are less well tested than barrages, ie an unknown quantity, and would require public money (not true according to Tidal Electric).

Also that the tidal barrage at La Rance in France has actually increased biodiversity.

The RSPB says it's the wrong sort of biodiversity (not what is there now). And that the £15bn (private finance all according to Taylor Woodrow's consortium) would be better spent on many more smaller projects.

Davies says that global warming will alter the biodiversity anyway.

Dave Elliott, who has been writing for 30 years on renewable energy, says that marine current turbines are cheaper than either of these options.

"15% of UK electricity could be obtained from these, built on the sea bed, and each could be built in a matter of weeks as the money became available." We should do this first he says, and the barrage, maybe, later.

Elliott says that the barrage could produce electricity at the wrong times sometimes. But this could be stored in fuel cells/hydrogen.

The barrage project now heads for evaluation, over at Westminster.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ;

CoRWM says bury the nuclear waste

Do you live in any of these places? A nuclear waste dump could be coming to you, acording to the draft report of CoRWM published today.

  • Adjacent to Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex
  • Ministry of Defence land on Potton Island, 8 km from Southend on Sea. Essex
  • Under the North Sea, accessed from the port at Redcar, Yorkshire
  • Under the sea between the Inner Hebrides and Northern Ireland, accessed from the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire
  • Killingholme, South Humberside
  • Ministry of Defence training area, Stanford, Norfolk
  • Adjacent to Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness
  • Two sites near the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria
  • Altnabreac in Caithness 18 km south of Dounreay
  • Fuday, small, uninhabited island north of Barra in the Western Isles
  • Sandray, small, uninhabited island south of Barra in the Western Isles
Hmm. How come Westminster isn't on the list?
After years of shilly-shallying, is deep storage the best they can do? Yes. Which just goes to show how dumb it would be to create more of the stuff.

Listening to the report being announced, it was clear from the tone of voice of CoRWM Chairman Gordon MacKerron on BBC's World At One, that he is deeply reluctant about any of the options, and realises full well that any community earmarked for the endeavour will rise up in opposition.

Although he said 'no comment' to a query on his thoughts on waste transport and new nuclear build, because he doesn't want to be drawn into that minefield, again, his tone suggested anyone would be mad to create more of this nightmarish stuff.

CoRWM has said that if Britain builds 10 new reactors this would produce an extra 31,900 cubic metres of spent fuel, on top of the 8,150 cubic metres currently stored. The implication being that there's simply no room for it.

A month ago, travelling on the M54 at night, the Low Carbon Kid passed a nuclear waste convoy. Five specially built vehicles were trundling over two lanes down the road. Only one was carrying the waste.

Are these costs and safety issues built into these expensive reports or industry lobbying documents? The Low Carbon Kid would love to see any evidence of this.

Greens say that any method eventually found to manage a legacy of radioactive waste for thousands of years would require it to be retrievable and monitorable. And that deep storage underground is an 'out of sight out of mind' method of dealing with the legacy and reinforces the extent of the problem we have created for future generations.

Green MSP Baird has said today: "The nuclear industry claims that new nuclear power stations will only add 10% to our current problem. This is a dishonest claim and I am pleased that CORWM clarify this on their website that it will in fact add over 300% to the high level waste mountain."

>> CoRWM’s package of draft recommendations for the long-term management of the UK's radioactive waste


>> CoRWM’s Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Europe's largest windfarm gets go-ahead

The go ahead for Europe’s largest wind farm has been announced today by Allan Wilson MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise & Lifelong Learning at the Scottish Executive


ScottishPower's application for the Whitelee wind farm project, south of Glasgow, has been given planning consent.

It will have a capacity to generate 322 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough to power nearly every home in Glasgow.

It will provide over 11% of the 2010 Scottish Executive’s renewable energy target (18% of all electricity generation in Scotland), and 2.4% of the UK wide target for 10% of electricity generation from renewables by 2010.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ;

WHO are they kidding?

The World Health Organisation's estimate of the number of people dying as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy is laughable. But I'm not laughing.



WHO's report says a total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure. Official UN figures predict up to 9,000 Chernobyl-related cancer deaths.

Dr Michael Repacholi, Manager of WHO's Radiation Program has said there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."

Greenpeace responded on Tuesday quoting recent studies estimating the actual toll will be 93,000. Other illnesses could take the toll to 200,000.

Part of the problem is that a comprehensive plan to dispose of tons of high-level radioactive waste at and around the Chernobyl NPP site, in accordance with current safety standards, has yet to be defined - so who knows what terrors lie in the future? £1.2bn is the current estimated cost of a new sarcophagus to cover it.

But also it depends whether you take account of just direct, or indirect causes. Furthermore tens of thousands have suffered health problems which don't result in death but which are still significant.

Green MSP Mark Ruskell speaking in a parliament debate today on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, said that it was unlikely that the precise death toll would ever be finally known and dismissed claims made by pro-nuclear campaigners that the public health damage from Chernobyl had been overstated.

In April this year, in a report for the Green group in the European Parliament, independent radiation scientists from the UK said that the death toll from cancers caused by Chernobyl will lie somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000.

"Chernobyl serves as a reminder of our obligation and responsibility to future generations to deliver safe, clean, sustainable energy supplies for the future," he said.

"In a country with among the world's best renewable energy resources it is unbelievable that we should be taking such a gamble when we have completely safe alternatives."

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Is it all over for nuclear power?

The Features Editor, Michael Brooks, of the prestigious New Scientist magazine seems to think so, in an article in the current issue.



He quotes a January Standard & Poors report saying that even the new incentives for the US nuclear industry will not be enough to persuade investors to climb aboard; from a business perspective, nuclear remains the highest-risk form of power generation.

He criticises the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Olkiluoto, Finland, the only nuclear power station presently under construction in Europe. A relatively new design of pressurised water reactor, the EPR is being built jointly by the French nuclear company Areva and the German company Siemens, and is being financed at extremely low rates of interest by French and German state-owned organisations.

The scheme is being investigated by the European Commission, following a complaint by the European Renewable Energies Federation that the financing breaches the commission's rules.

If the complaint is upheld, it will be a serious blow to the nuclear industry, which likes to point to Olkiluoto as evidence of the
viability of new nuclear stations.

Additionally, the company the plant is being built for, called TVO, is not a conventional electricity utility, but a company owned by large Finnish industrial concerns that supplies electricity to its owners on a not-for-profit basis. The sums wouldn't add up for any other project.

Brooks concludes "Nuclear power continues to prompt concerns based on safety issues, regulatory problems and the danger that it encourages proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons. Now it also faces a bigger hurdle: there are better economic options that are no less climate-friendly."

>> Read the full article as a PDF

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ;

The dirty energy boom fueling Europe

A new online map of energy projects in South-east Europe, put together by Stability Pact Watch, shows how the region is being turned into a fossil fuel transit corridor and a source of dirty energy for the European Union.



Current and planned fossil fuel and nuclear projects total at least $18 billion, dwarfing the roughly $253 million required for current and planned IFI-supported renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

And this is despite the desperate need for improved energy efficiency across the region and its massive potential for the development of renewables.

Key regional players such as the World Bank and the EBRD say they have recognised the importance of developing energy efficiency and renewable energy in the region, but so far the evidence on the ground is desperately thin.

The EBRD was behind the dubious funding of the new Chernobyl reactors (see previous blog item).

See the extent of the Balkan energy carve-up click here.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Could Chernobyl happen again? Have Ukraine, Russia and Belarus learnt anything?

Today, as we remember the tragedy of the world's worst accident (the title of a 1987 book on he explosion), we also remember all the lives affacted by its legacy


Children with terrible mutilations and mutations, a huge area's population left without hope, and many more with a ticking time bomb of cancers many still waiting to fruit.

The consequences of the 'peaceful atom' (as it was called in official Soviet propaganda) has, according to some estimates, affected more than seven million people.

Hundreds of people died from direct exposure to the high doses of radiation; many more continue to die from related diseases.

The economic damage to the regions affected in Ukraine and Belarus, brings its human cost too. And all over northern Europe, conaminated land still results in restrictions on animals.

The nuclear industry is adamant that the combination of events which led to Chernobyl's explosion could never happen again. The reactor design is different. Safety procedures are more stringent, information flow is more open, and so on.

All of this is true. but the very nature of an accident is that it occurs as a result of a combination of unforseen factors.

And foreseen ones. Like greed and the desire to make money. How so? Read on. We begin with a short story...

Back to 1986


"On the 1 May, me and my parents went to the countryside, to have a nice day together in the sun and gather some dandelions.

"We walked around, ran in the fields, played, dined on the grass and collected a whole bag of flowers.

"Happy, tired and covered with dust, we came home.

"Next evening my father, who worked in the energy sector, came home pale-faced and brought something I've never seen before.

"He said it was a 'dosimeter' to measure radiation - a word known to me only from political propaganda of the so-called 'peace lessons' in school.

"He measured the flowers first, and the dosimeter beeped madly.

"We threw them away, as well as the trainers, clothes we'd been wearing that day.

"Only at that moment we started to realise what had really happened on 26 April at Chernobyl- the scale of disaster official propaganda was silent about.

"We hardly knew that it was only the beginning of an endless story, and that we'll remember the year 1986 forever."

This is the testimony of one survivor.

Has the region learnt from the experience? Could it never happen again? Let's see what Ukraine, Russia and Belarus have done since then.

Ukraine



In 1993, overturning a previous resolution banning new nuclear development, the moratorium was cancelled, and nuclear projects were renewed, focusing on the unfinished 2nd reactor unit at Khmelnitsky and 4th unit at Rivne nuclear power plants (K2/R4).

Ignoring warnings about the danger of continuing with outdated technology, as well as the technical difficulties of 'crossbreeding' Soviet projects with Western ones, the government had only one concern; where to get the cash.

Western governments and international bodies, which insisted on the closure of Chernobyl, were told it would only be possible after receiving the funds needed for K2/R4.

Initially the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) promised to pay but then changed its mind, perhaps realising that nuclear energy is not the best option - especially in a country where a similar amount of energy could be saved by energy conservation programmes, which were practically non-existent.

This changed when a determined man, the head of the state nuclear energy company "Energoatom", Serhiy Tulub, was appointed energy minister.

In spite of public opposition and international concern, K2 was launched in August, and R4 in October 2004.

In July 2004 EBRD and Euroatom made an unprecedented decision - to provide Ukraine a loan of $125m on the security of K2/R4.

The loan is over 18 years, with the payments coming ultimately from people's taxes.

Poor Ukrainian citizens have already paid for the new units due to a governmental decree in which energy prices were raised to pay for the construction.

Regardless of the proclaimed 'independence' from Russian oil provided by nuclear power, Ukraine still imports nuclear fuel...from Russia, and until recently sent back the nuclear waste.

To reduce this dependency, two liquid nuclear waste storages were created.

In Jan 2005 "Energoatom" announced that work on a new solid waste storage plant will be carried out by US company Holtec International.

The new Ukrainian government thought that seeking US cooperation in the construction of its own nuclear fuel-cell capabilities would finally eliminate the dependence from Russia and allow Ukraine to produce even more energy.

But really, Ukraine has no need to produce more - already much of its energy is exported to Central and Eastern-European neighbours.

So: Europe gets cheap energy, the Ukrainian government some cash, Western companies get contracts and the Ukrainian people have the loans and debts to repay, 15 nuclear power stations, three nuclear waste storages and the prospect of a fully complete nuclear industry in their disaster-ravaged country.

Russia


Some of Russia's old reactors are of the same type as Chernobyl - RBMK - as well as outdated versions of Soviet-constructed VVER.

But the disaster never seriously affected the powerful Russian nuclear lobby.

In December 2004 the lives of the oldest reactors were extended and the Russian nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, is developing new nuclear power stations.

In 2001, the Russian parliament, under pressure from the Kremlin and in the face of public opposition, adopted a law allowing the importation of nuclear waste from other countries.

Officials painted a picture of huge amounts of cash pouring into Russia's coffers but this didn't happen: frightened by the appalling environmental conditions and prospects of technological disaster, no major Western government has dealt with them.

The only countries that export waste to Russia are Bulgaria and Ukraine.

The waste from Bulgaria and Ukraine arrives by long-distance railway but the security and disaster prevention measures are either unknown to the local authorities, or labelled "top-secret".

Every now and then a smuggler carrying weapons grade plutonium is caught leaving Russia. How many get through undetected?

Belarus


Chernobyl is 7 km from the Ukrainian-Belarus border and so Belarus was hit hard by the disaster.

About 23% of the whole territory has been officially recognised as radioactively contaminated.

In 1996 MPs adopted a 10-year moratorium on nuclear power.

It's unlikely it will be renewed this year.

Belarus' authoritarian president Aleksandr Lukashenka, started to talk about the prospect of a "Belarus nuclear power plant" a couple of years ago, and now this proposal is talked about openly in partnership with the French.

Last year many of the contaminated areas were proclaimed 'clean'.

At the same time, compensation was given only to selected people - those designated "really harmed" by the disaster.

While the impact of radioactivity on human health is still unclear, a government paper claims that the only indicator of harm is cancer of the thyroid gland.

The strategy includes the idea that these 'clean' territories should now become economically 'self-sufficient', develop private business and compete on the global market.

Such a change has been met enthusiastically not only by Belarus officials, but also international institutions: the World Bank agreed to provide money to the isolated regime to help implement the project.

So, the governments of all three affected states have managed to effectively silence or ignore anti-nuclear opposition and plan openly to revive the industry.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

End car-aholism!

A new book by Lynn Sloman, who lives locally to the Low Carbon Kid, protests against our car-dependent culture.



Called ‘Car Sick: Solutions for our Car-addicted Culture’ it is about the issues posed by caraholism.

It also features a lot of local places and people from here in the Dyfi Valley – including highlighting the problems with poor public transport east of Machynlleth, and solutions such as flexible taxibuses, the credit-card sized timetables that the Dyfi Valley Public Transport Users group has been developing, and the Machynlleth car club.

If you would like to obtain a copy, it can be ordered directly from the publishers on Green Books or from The Guardian for a £1 discount. It costs £10.95.

There was also an article about it in the Guardian.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Cameron "hard to take seriously on climate change"

David Cameron wants to reform the Climate Change Levy. He's adopted the recommendations of the left-wing ippr - Institute for Public Policy Research. But do they agree with the Tory chameleon?



Tony Grayling ippr associate director today said:
"The Conservatives are right to accept ippr's recommendations to reform the Climate Change Levy.

"Basing the Levy on carbon emissions rather than energy use would make it more effective.

"But there is a real contradiction in Conservative policy towards climate change because of their attitude to Europe.

"Without the EU there would be no Kyoto Protocol and no European carbon market. These are the building blocks of a global solution to climate change, including the Clean Development Mechanism that binds in the developing countries.

"David Cameron may be distancing himself from the 'fruitcakes' in the UK Independence Party but he is withdrawing the Conservatives from the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament.

"Unless he changes his tune on Europe, he will be hard to take seriously on climate change."

Tony Grayling is the author of Climate Commitment: Meeting the UK's 2010
carbon dioxide emissions target. It recommended reform of the Climate Change Levy and Agreements.

The Climate Change Levy is a tax on energy used by businesses.

The ippr say it should be reformed so that it is based on CO2 emissions from different fuels and the rates are increased towards the estimated social costs of greenhouse gas emissions of about £70/tCe.

The increased revenue should be earmarked for climate change mitigation measures.

Sectors covered by Climate Change Agreements should continue to receive an 80 per cent discount on the levy and agreements should be enhanced and extended.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Irish tell Scots to end their nuclear age

As the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is being marked across the world, the General Secretary of the Irish Green Party (which has six members of parliament and 29 councillors across Ireland) is today handing in a petition to the Scottish Parliament concerning its potential backing for building new nuclear power stations in Scotland.



The Irish Government has been trying to stop Sellafield from polluting the Irish sea for decades, through the European courts, and the prospect of more nuclear power stations in Scotland is seen as increasing the threat to the people and environment of Ireland.

Scottish Greens will also announce new campaign plans to 'resist the nuclear menace' and release new information which Greens say dispels the myths and disinformation promoted by the nuclear lobby.

A photocall and interviews took place outside the public entrance at 11am with an extra-large 'nuclear power: not needed, not wanted' symbol, and the Irish petition will be officially handed in to parliament.

The petition said: "The petitioner requests that the Scottish Parliament investigates the impact of the building and operation of new nuclear power stations in Scotland on neighbouring countries including Ireland, particularly with respect to radioactive pollution, nuclear accident and on the development of renewable energy technologies and that the Parliament makes these impacts known to the Scottish Executive in advance of any decision to allow new nuclear power stations to be built."

The petitioners drew attention to 'Nuclear Power: What you Need To Know' information leaflet.

Among the myths are that the lights are about to go out and that renewable energy can't meet our needs. This despite there being massive renewable energy resources in Scotland, estimated to be able to power Scotland many times over and huge potential for greater energy efficiency.

Nuclear lobbyists regularly claim nuclear energy will tackle climate change but in fact will do the opposite - high levels of fossil fuels are required in mining, processing, transport and construction - never mind cost of nuclear reducing investment in alternatives.

Another common myth is that new nuclear reactors will only produce 10% of the waste of the old ones - when in fact CORWM, the government's own advisers, have admitted that the increase in high level waste is more than 300% and that the total amount of radioactivity is even higher than that.


Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

If Chernobyl happened in the UK

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the world's worst accident. Some of the Low Carbon Kid's colleagues in the Keep Wales Nuclear Free group have been modelling what would happen if a similar incident occured in the UK.


The model assumes it happens at Wylfa, Wales' only nuclear plant on Anglesey. The map below links to a bigger version.

Chernobyl fallout applied to Wylfa

Other maps:

Chernobyl-like accident at Oldbury

Chernobyl-like accident at Hinkley Point

We are not saying it's likely to happen, but it's not outside the bounds of possibility as this article explains.

Quite apart from accidental disaster, in light of 9/11 we also need to be aware that nuclear reactors are potential terrorist targets and that they are not designed to withstand impacts from passenger jets like those that demolished the Twin Towers.

We are currently waiting for the Government's decision on whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations following its current energy review.

The Keep Wales Nuclear Free campaign received full-page coverage in the Western Mail on April 22. The Western Mail article is here.

Thanks to David Baines and Ian Taylor.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Friday, April 21, 2006

Back the Severn Barrage

Wales' First Minister Rhodri Morgan and Welsh Secretary Peter Hain have backed plans for a barrage over the Bristol Channel. It could produce the same amount of electricity as three to five nuclear power stations.


It would provide 6% of the UK's electricity. But the RSPB and Friends of the Earth Cymru oppose it at present because its design endangers birds.

The Low Carbon Kid espoused tidal and marine energy in his energy review submission. It's proven technology. It's cost-effective over its life cycle (hydro in Scotland is now the cheapest form of electricity).

There are ways around the ecological damage - reserves can be created. And tidal lagoons can also work.

I say to environmentalists who oppose it - be imaginative - think of the damage caused by other forms of electricity. Or stop using electricity at all.

The Severn has a tidal range approaching 14m, the second highest in the world. Other possible UK sites are in Liverpool Bay (area to the north of Rhyl) and the Thames Estuary.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Is Blue the new Green?

Cameron goes to Norway and discovers ice melting, shock horror. Brown tells UN and G8 to make environment top priority.


The two contenders are slugging out the early rounds of the next election (and the local elections) in a green-tinged boxing ring. Who'd have thought it?

Full marks to the Tory whizz-kid for pushing green to the top of the agenda. About time, say many.

But beware. Anyone who seriously thinks blue can be the new green (we know red wasn't): remember Catch-23.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Business as usual - high consumption lifestyles - are simply not compatible with saving the planet. To get the UK's ecological footprint down from 3.1 earths to less than one, would mean something neither party could espouse - drastic change.

Not, for example, flying with a retinue of hacks to the arctic circle.

The Low Carbon Kid wonders if Cameron carbon-neutralised his air travel. Next time perhaps he'll go the true low-carbon - Viking - way - by boat.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ;

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Nuclear / energy review round up of views

Anyone following the nuclear / energy review may find the following reports helpful, released over the last week, in addition to those already covered:

Further, recent energy costs in the US have indicated wind generated electricity costs as falling below that produced from gas.

However there is the issue of offshore wind stalling because of steel prices rising by 50% due, says the BWEA to Chinese and India demand. Turbines have risen is cost also due to Chinese and US demand.

Amicus, the trade union of manaufacturers, came out pro-nuclear, following the TUC having been scared by the 'lights out' propaganda of the nuclear lobby. So did the Major Energy Users’ Council.

Many small groups gave submissions, for example Regen SW, who said:
  1. Allow local authorities to require zero carbon buildings in new development.
  2. Require every District Council to set its own renewable electricity target.
  3. Give local and regional authorities the ability to take responsibility for reducing carbon emissions.
  4. Create a financial incentive for the use of renewable energy for local heat needs.
and our own local Ecodyfi [Word doc 26kB].

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

MPs slam Energy Review

An influential body of MPs has said that a new generation of nuclear power stations cannot solve our energy supply problems in the short term and crucial questions of security, cost and effectiveness remain unanswered.



The cross-party parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee's report 'Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change' warns that "The Government must be far more imaginative and radical in pursuing the twin goals of the Energy White Paper - energy efficiency and renewables. The last three years since the White Paper have been something of a wasted opportunity."

It raises concerns over the risk of terrorist attacks and the full costs of nuclear generation, which could crowd out other new energy sources. "You cannot claim nuclear is the answer to problems of supply in the gas market [in the next few years] ... Nuclear power couldn't appear over that sort of timescale".

The MPs complained about the lack of transparency in the Review, and a lack of "due process of monitoring and accountability", adding "If the Energy Review is focussed mainly on electricity generation and, in particular, a decision on nuclear, then it is unclear what the nature of such a decision could be and the Secretary of State himself was unable to explain this." Surely, they say, it's up to a liberalised energy market to decide on the fuel mix?

They conclude by calling for a return of the aims aspired to in 2003's Energy White Paper.

The Low Carbon Kid says these MPs are clearly unreconstructed and off-message. Blair will no doubt treat them with the contempt he feels they deserve.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Keep Wales Nuclear-Free goes to Downing Street

The Keep Wales Nuclear-Free petition signed by 2,350 people is being presented at Downing Street today.


Presenting it are Lembit Öpik (Lib Dem MP for Mongomeryshire), Jenny Willott (Lib Dem MP for Cardiff Central), Nia Griffith (Labour MP for Llanelli), plus representatives from Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth, the Centre for Alternative Technology, Wales Green Party and Friends of the Earth Ltd.

Speaking at the event Roger Higman, Climate Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, when asked if the Prime Minister was keen to press ahead with nuclear as part of the Government?s Energy review, Mr Higman told a Westminster news conference: "We (Friends of the Earth) commissioned a former Number 10 staffer to look at what was actually going on inside Whitehall about this and there?s no doubt that the Energy Review was promoted by a small clique of four or five civil servants and David King (Professor Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientist) and Tony Blair has gone along with it, probably because he personally thinks that nuclear power stations are needed."

The Wales Green Party has become the latest group to join the growing campaign, which means they join
  • Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth
  • the Centre for Alternative Technology
  • Friends of the Earth Cymru
  • the Welsh Liberal Democrats
  • CND Cymru
  • the Wales Anti-Nuclear Alliance and the Wales Alliance Against Nuclear Weapons.
Last month the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum announced its support for the campaign. This effectively adds the ten Welsh local authorities that have declared themselves nuclear-free to the list of endorsements. The authorities are:
  • Caerphilly County Borough Council
  • Ceredigion County Council
  • Flintshire County Council
  • Gwynedd Council
  • Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
  • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
  • Newport County Borough Council
  • Pembrokeshire County Council
  • Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough Council
  • City and County of Swansea.
There are two key associated Early Day Motions which you can get your MP to sign, tabled by the Welsh Lib Dems with cross-party support: EDM 1565 "Keep Wales Nuclear-Free Campaign" and EDM 1564 "Debate and Vote On Nuclear Power".

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

35-strong alliance supports 'no nuclear' in Energy Review

Thirty-five organisations, concerned with securing clean, sustainable energy supplies, have joined forces to issue a joint statement tomorrow in response to the Government’s Energy Policy Review.



'A Sustainable Energy Policy', outlines what priorities and specific policy actions should come out of the Energy Review.

The manifesto is being launched tomorrow at the Houses of Parliament with high level, cross party support.

The manifesto calls on the Government to:
  • uphold the vision, objectives and targets of the 2003 Energy White Paper and re-affirm its commitment to all related statutory and non-statutory targets;
  • develop the long-term policy framework needed to promote business investment;
  • minimise the ‘energy gap’ before trying to fill it, by reducing demand, encouraging efficient energy production and usage, and then boosting renewables;
  • focus on sustainable heat and transport as well as electricity; and
  • identify a single body responsible for achieving sustainable energy targets.

Spearheading the alliance, Philip Wolfe, Chief Executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said: "This is the last chance for Government to bring forward a sustained package of measures to deliver the objectives set out in 2003. Industry is looking for strong signals so we can invest in the necessary changes to our energy system."

The environmental think tank Green Alliance was the other prime mover in the initiative and its Director, Guy Thompson said: "It is only two years since the last energy review put energy efficiency and renewables at the heart of the fight against climate change. The government needs to grasp the nettle and develop a long term framework that will allow these technologies to deliver the carbon reductions that we so urgently need."

The National Energy Foundation (NEF) is another body joining in. It is urging the Government to do more to encourage small-scale installations of renewable energy across the country and to reduce energy demand.

"Householders can already invest in cost-effective and clean renewable options, including solar water heating, modern wood pellet stoves and ground source heat pumps, but are reluctant to do so owing to a lack of information, and the hassle factor of finding a quality approved installer.

"The Government should address these barriers and encourage greater energy efficiency, rather than focusing on building new large-scale generating capacity, if the UK is to close the 'Energy Gap' and meet its carbon dioxide targets," said Dr Tim Lunel today.

>> National Energy Foundation

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ; ;

Legacy of Chernobyl

Photographer Paul Fusco went to Chernobyl and documented the effects of radiation on locals.



As the 20th anniversary approaches, we must remember its horrors so it doesn't happen again.

This FiftyCrows short film directed by Andy Patrick is a moving film showing Paul's incredible photos.

Technorati Tags: ; ; ; ;