UK

7° London Hi 8°C / Lo 5°C

Plans to fast-track nuclear plants to be unveiled

By Craig Woodhouse, Press Association

Plans to fast-track a new generation of nuclear power stations are set to be unveiled tomorrow by the Government.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband will announce a series of national policy statements which will include a list of sites deemed suitable for new nuclear developments.

Under changes to the planning laws, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will be able to speed through the proposals for new schemes if it decides they fit in with the policy statements.

That would contrast with examples such as the six-year struggle to steer the Sizewell B power station through the planning process, and is likely to encourage foreign firms such as E.ON, RWE npower and EDF to produce a new fleet of UK power stations that could be up and running by 2017.

Alongside nuclear power, the Government will issue draft policy statements setting out the national need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels, gas and infrastructure, as well as an overarching energy statement.

Green groups expressed dismay at the prospect of new nuclear power and warned the Government could be open to legal challenge if the statements do not properly consider climate change.

They have also raised concerns that people will not be able to influence decisions on major projects because schemes covered by the statements will not be subject to public inquiry.

But the Government insists firms will have to work closely with local regions and show they have consulted widely in order to gain approval.

The statements are expected to cite the finite nature of fossil fuels and the pressing demands of climate change while making the case for nuclear power stations.

Mr Miliband will also set out the financial and regulatory framework for driving forward clean coal "carbon capture and storage" technology, but Greenpeace said neither should be part of Britain's future energy mix.

Robin Oakley, head of the group's climate and energy campaign, said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.

"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."

Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the battle against climate change should be at the "core" of all Government decisions in order to meet commitments on reducing emissions.

And he added: "Building new nuclear reactors is not the answer to the challenges of climate change and energy security.

"Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.

"And building new plants would divert precious resources from developing safe renewable power, while doing little to bring about the urgent emissions reductions that are desperately needed within the next decade."

Mr Miliband, who will unveil the draft national policy statements to the Commons, said they were crucial for the shape of Britain's future energy supply.

"We know the low-carbon transition is a huge challenge," he said.

"We now need to move on to getting the actions in place to make it happen.

"That is why the national policy statements and Infrastructure Planning Commission are important, because the truth is that we are not going to be able to deliver a 21st century energy system with a 20th century planning system."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

heard it all before
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 November 2009 at 08:22 pm (UTC)
'But the Government insists firms will have to work closely with local regions and show they have consulted widely in order to gain approval.'

Anyone who has objected to any of the outlandish schemes central or ;local government come up with knows the results of hearings are decided before the hearing takes place and evidence that danms the proposals is totally ignored: that's the system.

Every proper study of nuclear has clearly demonstrated that it is unsafe, expensive and does not substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, whatever is good for corporations, speculators and moneyed interests is what we will get.
spot the split infinitive ;)
[info]wattacurfuffle wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:29 pm (UTC)


Fossil fuel energy generation has to be progressively replaced, the planet cannot stand it much longer, and anyway, it's getting harder to source.

The big advantage of nuclear power is that it is a one-decision solution. Useful for those with small minds. 
It is a mature technology, it has been around for over half a century and benefited from huge public subsidies, yet still it does not know what to safely do with it's waste.


Nuclear turbines generate a fantastic amount of heat, which requires massive quantities of cooling water, hence the preferred coastal siting of most nuclear power stations. Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere between 1 metre and 75 metres by the end of the century, and even the lower range of the estimate will be hard to hold back with barrages. Yes, I know we are already in a hole about this, but do we have to keep on digging?

Fusion power was thirty years away when my brother was doing his physics doctorate, in the 1960's. And it still is.  Bizarre. Apparently, $6 billion is to be put in to fusion research this year. Hey people, we're going to make a mini star on earth! Excuse me for my sceptism. And trepidation.

We have a tried and tested, free, massive fusion reactor, a safe 93,000,000 miles away. A reactor that is not subject to disruption by rising sea levels, or earthquakes, or human error. We have the proven ability to harvest the energy it emits.

It is a shame to lump all the non-nuclear, non fossil power generation technologies into a single 'renewables' basket, when they are multivariously diverse, and each different method of power/heat generation has it's place.
Solar is getting cheaper and easier - thin film technology, nano printing techniques...Wind works, in it's way. It's good for what it's good for.
Geothermal heat pumps. Tidal barrages - for the UK, this is big and reliable. Hydro, for generation and as a proven storage system.

The nimbys must be brought on side.
The destruction of the purity of your visual horizon cannot be a reason to deny permission to a wind farm, the potential alteration of habitats cannot provide a veto to a tidal barrage. These changes we can learn to live with, and so can the wading birds.

But nothing survives deuterium and plutonium. Except the cockroaches. Or is that an urban myth?

We are all capable of halving our own energy use, without great difficulty. So that'll help. Take up the slack in the economy thus created by getting on with building the Severn barrage, more welsh pumped water storage, smarten up the power grid, insulating and energizing. Car factories could surely convert to work in these areas.

We also have to consider how wasteful and greedy a lifestyle we can afford. Admittedly, many small solutions will not provide as effective a power base for a ruling elite to manipulate to their advantage. Many small solutions will involve more people. Some may say that is a bonus. I certainly think so.



Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date