Skip to main content

High Court Rejects U.K. Energy Review

The big news out of Europe this morning is a decision from the High Court in London that the U.K. energy review released in 2006 that included a recommendation for expanded use of nuclear energy was "seriously flawed". From Bloomberg:
The High Court in London today backed claims brought by environmentalist group Greenpeace that ministers didn't present clear information on key issues such as the disposal of radioactive waste and the costs of new plants before publishing a report on its energy review last July.

``There was procedural unfairness and a breach of the applicant's legitimate expectation that there would be the fullest consultation,'' Justice Jeremy Sullivan told the court. ``It was not merely inadequate, but it was also misleading.''
Despite the setback, the government, which may yet appeal the ruling, vowed to fight on:
``We're in a race against time here,'' Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said in an interview about the ruling on British Broadcasting Corp.'s Radio 4 in London. ``Climate change is a major threat for us. The best thing to do is to learn from the judge's verdict, to consult and to get things back on track.''
As one of my colleagues here at NEI just mentioned to me, "It's all fun and games until the lights go out in London. What are they waiting for, a chance to become over reliant on Russian natural gas?"

UPDATE: A realistic look at the practical implications of Greenpeace's "activism" from Time Immortal. And to enjoy some hip and casual opposition to Greenpeace, click here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
What are they waiting for, a chance to become overreliant on Russian natural gas?

Yup.

Only way the idiocy stops is that blackouts return. Then the uncritical support for enviromental lobbies who are against everything and for nothing will evaporate. Look at what happened in California - it took rolling blackouts to send the activists into hiding long enough to get some new plants built here. Of course, they're gas-fired. :(
Sinus said…
Another example of incompetent judges swallowing "green" lies.
Matthew66 said…
I don't think that the judge is incompetent or that Greenpeace committed perjury. The government very foolishly tried to short cut the established procedures. The government should have either followed the established procedures or enacted legislation changing those procedures, or exempting the new policy from those procedures.

The British Government must now go back and either consult as requried by the current law or change the law. Under the British system both these options are available.

I am not sure what public consultation is expected to achieve. They will get two camps presenting opposing views, and then the government will write a report that favors its own position and do what it wants. Not necessarily a waste of time, but consultation is unlikely to change the government's policy.

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...