Skip to main content

High Court Rejects U.K. Energy Review

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

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. :(
February 15, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Sinus said…
Another example of incompetent judges swallowing "green" lies.
February 15, 2007 at 3:00 PM
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.
February 16, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more