NUCLEAR POLICY: UNITED KINGDOM
Published in B&E
1000 reasons for......and against the British government’s nuclear plans
The Brown government in UK is being vigorously confronted by the Greens over the nuclear power issue. The environmental group had recently pulled out of the government sponsored consultations with the public on the issue. The recently concluded London survey, involving 1000 representatives of the British population has revealed that 46% support the use of nuclear power & about 25% disapprove of the government’s plans to revive and renew the nuclear energy resources. However, despite the support extended for the nuclear energy, 92% of the Londoners’ have expressed their concern against the disposal of nuclear waste likely to be generated by reactors.The environment lobby (consisting of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance and a few others) is dissatisfied with the government’s consultation exercise. John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace, told B&E that the entire process is a “farce”, & “public relations stitch-up” by the government. Earlier in February, the London High Court had declared the first round of consultation process conducted by the government to be “seriously flawed” & “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. This time again the Greens opposed to the setting up new nuclear power stations and are contemplating moving the Courts against the government plan.The government’s defence in favour of revitalising nuclear power is based on national energy security concerns. The British, who had built their first nuclear reactor in 1956 have a total of 19 reactors – the last one began operations in 1995. All the reactors barring one are likely to complete their life-cycle & decommissioned by 2023. Roughly 18% of the British electrify needs are met by nuclear power. Gas & coal supply 37% & 34 % of the power respectively. Now, according to the government, if the decision to set up new nuclear plants is delayed further, its dependence on fossil fuels will worsen by the day. The other line of defence, which the Brown administration is adopting is that nuclear energy is essential to meet the carbon emission norms laid down by the EU. “Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891,” says the London-based reputed environmentalist Gorge Monbiot.
Besides the government, the other party interested in seeing the revival of nuclear power is of course the corporations like Areva NP, EDF, British Energy, E.On, Iberdrola, RWE npower & Suez, who after the release of Energy policy in 2007 (granting access to private players in nuclear reactors field) have been getting seriously involved in the process. The Greenpeace and other groups however, feel that instead of going atomic, the government needs to invest more in renewable energy, in order to achieve 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.The arguments put forth by all the parties are right. If nuclear waste & safety are a threat to environment, then the depleting fossil fuels too is a reality. The issue needs to be decided squarely & fairly in people’s court and for that the British government will have to involve the majority population rather than merely a set of 1000 people.
The Brown government in UK is being vigorously confronted by the Greens over the nuclear power issue. The environmental group had recently pulled out of the government sponsored consultations with the public on the issue. The recently concluded London survey, involving 1000 representatives of the British population has revealed that 46% support the use of nuclear power & about 25% disapprove of the government’s plans to revive and renew the nuclear energy resources. However, despite the support extended for the nuclear energy, 92% of the Londoners’ have expressed their concern against the disposal of nuclear waste likely to be generated by reactors.The environment lobby (consisting of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance and a few others) is dissatisfied with the government’s consultation exercise. John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace, told B&E that the entire process is a “farce”, & “public relations stitch-up” by the government. Earlier in February, the London High Court had declared the first round of consultation process conducted by the government to be “seriously flawed” & “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. This time again the Greens opposed to the setting up new nuclear power stations and are contemplating moving the Courts against the government plan.The government’s defence in favour of revitalising nuclear power is based on national energy security concerns. The British, who had built their first nuclear reactor in 1956 have a total of 19 reactors – the last one began operations in 1995. All the reactors barring one are likely to complete their life-cycle & decommissioned by 2023. Roughly 18% of the British electrify needs are met by nuclear power. Gas & coal supply 37% & 34 % of the power respectively. Now, according to the government, if the decision to set up new nuclear plants is delayed further, its dependence on fossil fuels will worsen by the day. The other line of defence, which the Brown administration is adopting is that nuclear energy is essential to meet the carbon emission norms laid down by the EU. “Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891,” says the London-based reputed environmentalist Gorge Monbiot.
Besides the government, the other party interested in seeing the revival of nuclear power is of course the corporations like Areva NP, EDF, British Energy, E.On, Iberdrola, RWE npower & Suez, who after the release of Energy policy in 2007 (granting access to private players in nuclear reactors field) have been getting seriously involved in the process. The Greenpeace and other groups however, feel that instead of going atomic, the government needs to invest more in renewable energy, in order to achieve 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050.The arguments put forth by all the parties are right. If nuclear waste & safety are a threat to environment, then the depleting fossil fuels too is a reality. The issue needs to be decided squarely & fairly in people’s court and for that the British government will have to involve the majority population rather than merely a set of 1000 people.
No comments:
Post a Comment