Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima

Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima
We feel very sad for the people of Japan who want to end nuclear energy whilst a potential new government and big business are desperate for it

No Fukushima at Oldbury

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

Thursday, 26 August 2010

Merkel meets the nuclear fief leaders

How reassuring to know there is a strong german chancellor who will stand up to the might of E.on and RWE.

She is firmly putting them in their place!

Let us hope the british government will do the same!

LINGEN, Germany (Dow Jones)--German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday that the proposed levy on nuclear fuel rods, which utilities have said would eat into their profits, is part of the government's efforts to reduce the public budget deficit.

"We're eyeing the levy to achieve our goal to consolidate the [federal] budget," Merkel told reporters.

"On top of that we have to discuss how the energy utilities will contribute to [the expansion of] renewable energies," she added.

Merkel made the comments after meeting the chief executives of the country's largest utilities, E.ON AG (EOAN.XE) and RWE AG (RWE.XE), at RWE's nuclear reactor Emsland in Lingen, western Germany.

Germany's nuclear reactor operators--E.ON, RWE, EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG (EBK.XE) and Vattenfall Europe AG (VTT-XE)--have warned that the government's plan to tax the fuel used in nuclear power plants could make reactors unprofitable and hasten the country's exit from atomic energy generation.

They have also said that the levy would hit their future earnings and might require them to reduce investment plans and sell assets to retain their credit ratings.

Merkel's center-right coalition has said it will raise EUR2.3 billion annually from the fuel-rod tax from 2011 as part of its EUR80 billion austerity measures for the coming years.

So far, it hasn't ruled out imposing a levy in addition to the fuel-rod tax, with the additional funds raised to be spent on renewable energy projects.

In its coalition agreement the government has vowed to postpone the agreed gradual phase-out of nuclear energy production to help achieve its ambitious climate protection goal and keep power prices at an acceptable level.

The government had originally planned to extend the operating lives of nuclear power plants under the condition that they're safe to operate and utilities give up a certain part of the profits they would generate by running the reactors longer. These funds would have been used to help fund the expansion of renewable energy sources, according to the coalition agreement.

-By Martin Rapp, Dow Jones Newswires; +49 69 29 725 503;

(Andrea Thomas in Berlin and Jan Hromadko in Frankfurt contributed to this article.)

Professor confirms Merkel is right to chargwe a levy on nuclear

A levy on nuclear producers is right

letter in the Financial Times

Published: August 25 2010 02:06
Last updated: August 25 2010 02:06

From Prof Eric De Keuleneer.

Sir, German chancellor Angela Merkel is wise to tax her nuclear producers (“Merkel stands firm on nuclear tax plan”, August 23) because these correspond very much to the rent seekers that plague the capitalist system, as you regularly denounce. The same applies in Belgium for nuclear producers: their rent comes from the accelerated depreciation they could impose on consumers during the 1980s and the 1990s, nuclear power plants having been built to last at least 40 years, and depreciated in 20 years. The extra costs of this accelerated depreciation were borne by electricity consumers at large, with no risk to the producers, organised in oligopolies with tariffs regulated on a cost-plus basis. This subsidy is not the only one enjoyed by nuclear producers, who enjoy a limitation of damage responsibility to a fraction of the potential costs (yes, like offshore oil producers used to).

As a result, the old, fully amortised nuclear power plants now produce electricity at a total cost of maximum €15-€17 per MWh. Since the market price is today at least about €50 per MWh for medium-term contracts, and the German levy would amount to €15 per MWh, it still leaves a very high profit margin on those power plants. The Belgian government has recently started raising a levy on those power plants, far too small at €5 per MWh, but future government parties want to increase that substantially. Nuclear producers in Belgium are screaming of course, and have also managed to produce protest reactions by “business leaders”, thanks to a combination of threats of apocalypse, selective supplies at privileged conditions, and a vast network of public and private “partners” who share a small part of the rent.

The general interest would certainly be well served if the rent accumulated by the nuclear producers in the past could be brought back to the general economy; in liberalised markets it is best to do that through taxes or a levy, which could serve to finance green electricity instead of charging its cost to consumers, and remunerate taxpayers and citizens at large who overpaid their electricity for years and who are currently providing the damage responsibility insurance at no cost. The German government should thus be ready for more lobbying propaganda, and should not be surprised if bankers, those other famous rent seekers, join the lobbying efforts, maybe as a matter of reciprocity for past lobbying in their favour.

Eric De Keuleneer,

Solvay Brussels School of Economics,

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Horizon invite to seminar day

Dear Chris Tandy

We as, Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy, a significant stakeholder in the Oldbury area close to the proposed new site at Shepperdine would like to attend the seminar day detailed below.

We would like 2 places.

Please confirm the price and payment terms.

Many thanks

Reg illingworth

Nuclear New Build Forum 2010 is proud to welcome Alan Raymant, Chief Operating Officer, Horizon Nuclear Power, who will speak about how Horizon is preparing to play a significant role in a new era of nuclear generation for the UK.

Please click here to book on to the event

Book now and save £100!

Attendees will also hear from, and debate with all the other key players involved in the UK’s new build programme. Here are a few of the other senior level speakers at this year’s event:

Chris Bakken, Director for Operations, Safety and Licensing, EDF Energy

Kevin Allars, Director for Nuclear New Build GDA, HSE Nuclear Directorate

Alan McGoff, Policy Lead, Nuclear New Build, Environment Agency

Anders Jackson, President, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Westinghouse

Robert Davies, UK New Build Director, AREVA

Dr Brian Murphy, Research Director, Cogent SSC

Peter Atherton, Managing Director, Head - European Utility Sector Research, Citigroup Global Markets

Robin Grimes, Director of the Imperial Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London

In addition to hearing from industry leading figures, delegates will also have numerous chances to network and build long-lasting working relationships. Click here to see the programme in full.

Event details:

Venue: Radisson Blu Portman, London

Date: 25th November 2010

For more information and to register your place, please contact us on:

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7760 8699



Or you can arrange for us to call you back

Warm regards,

Chris Tandy

Conference Producer, Marketforce

Book now for Westminster Energy,Environment & Transport Forum Keynote Seminar

Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum Keynote Seminar

Nuclear energy


Mark Higson

Chief Executive

Office for Nuclear Development

Department of Energy and Climate Change


Paul Spence

Director of Strategy and Regulation

EDF Energy

Full list of speakers below

This event is CPD certified

Wednesday, 27th October 2010

Central London

Dear Joss

I am writing to invite you to the above seminar. Please note there is a charge for most delegates, although no one is excluded on the basis of ability to pay (see below).


This seminar will assess the continuing debate over the position of nuclear power in the UK 's future energy mix.

Planned sessions focus on the economic, environmental and political challenges that UK policy makers, and energy and utility companies, face in the mobilisation of a sustainable nuclear power strategy for the 21st century.

Including a keynote presentation from the Department of Energy and Climate Change and EDF, planned sessions focus on:

· The UK nuclear power context;

· Continuing concerns: safety, sustainability and waste disposal;

· The challenges for nuclear new build: investment and the planning system; and

· Industry strategy and progress for 21st century nuclear power;

The draft agenda is copied below my signature, and a regularly updated version is available to view online here. The seminar is organised on the basis of strict impartiality by the Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum.

Speakers and Attendees

We are delighted that Mark Higson, Chief Executive, Office for Nuclear Development, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Paul Spence, Director of Strategy and Regulation, EDF Energy have both kindly agreed to deliver keynote addresses at this seminar.

Other confirmed speakers include: Murray Birt, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy, Confederation of British Industry; Munir Hassan, Partner, Energy & Utilities, CMS Cameron McKenna and Steve Hornsby, Partner, Nuclear Industry Leader, IBM Global Business Services UK.

Further senior participants are being approached. If you or a colleague would like to be considered as a speaker at this seminar, please contact us at and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible. If you are offering to speak yourself please don’t fill in the booking form, as this will be taken as an order and you will be charged for a place subject to our T&Cs.

Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum seminars present an opportunity to engage with key policymakers and other interested parties, and are CPD certified. Typically attendees at our seminars are a senior and informed group numbering around 140, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, senior officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change and other relevant Departments, as well as energy and environment professionals, representatives of energy organisations, academics, local government, interested and affected citizens’ and interest groups, and representatives of the trade and national press.

Output and About Us

A key output of the seminar will be a transcript of the proceedings, sent out within a week of the event to Ministers and officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change and other departments affected by the issues, Parliamentarians with a special interest in these areas, and policy makers in other institutions, departments and agencies. It will also be made available more widely. It will include transcripts of all speeches and questions and answers sessions from the day, along with access to PowerPoint presentations, speaker biographies, attendee list, an agenda and sponsor information. It is made available subject to strict restrictions on public use, similar to those for Select Committee Uncorrected Evidence, and is intended to provide timely information for interested parties who are unable to attend on the day.

All delegates will receive free PDF copies and are invited to contribute to the content.

The Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum is strictly impartial and cross-party, and draws on the considerable support it receives from within Parliament and Government, and amongst the wider stakeholder community. The Forum has no policy agenda of its own. Forum events are frequently the platform for major policy statements from senior Ministers, regulators and other officials, opposition speakers and senior opinion formers in industry and interest groups. Events regularly receive prominent coverage in the national and trade press.

Booking arrangements

To book places, please use our online booking form.

Once submitted, this will be taken as a confirmed booking and will be subject to our terms and conditions below.

Please pay in advance by credit card on 01344 864796. If advance credit card payment is not possible, please let me know and we may be able to make other arrangements.

Options and charges are as follows:

Places at Nuclear energy (including refreshments and PDF copy of the transcripts) are £190 plus VAT (£223.25);

Concessionary rate places for small charities, unfunded individuals and those in similar circumstances are £80 plus VAT (£94). Please be sure to apply for this at the time of booking.

For those who cannot attend:

Copies of the briefing document, including full transcripts of all speeches and the questions and comments sessions and further articles from interested parties, will be available approximately 7 days after the event for £95 plus VAT (£111.63);

Concessionary rate: £50 plus VAT (£58.75).

If you find the charge for tickets a barrier to attending, please let me know and we will do our best to see you are not excluded. Please note terms and conditions below (including cancellation charges).

HSE thinks approvals for new reacrors will slip past June 2011.

Having been to the Olkiluoto site my only request to HSE is that, if and when, the reactors get the go ahead that we donot get the farsical situations that is happening in Finland and also now in Flammanville.

I know, STUK, the regulator from Finland ,is very professional but have massive problems with Areva and their management.

Safety regulator tells nuclear reactor makers to redouble efforts

It is increasingly unlikely that the UK's first nuclear reactors will get full regulatory approval by mid-2011, according to the Health and Safety Executive.

By Rowena Mason

Published: 6:30AM BST 26 Aug 2010

Areva's reactor is further ahead with the process than Westinghouse's reactor, but there are outstanding problems with both companies' designs

Areva, the French atomic specialist, and Westinghouse, its Japanese rival, had been hoping to gain full permission for their designs by next June, after a lengthy and meticulous assessment process.

However, the HSE warned yesterday that there was still a huge amount of work to be done before this point, suggesting that the timetable for building UK reactors could slip.

Proprietary traders should welcome tougher FSA testsAreva's reactor - intended for the first EDF stations at Hinkley Point in Somerset - is further ahead with the process than Westinghouse's reactor, but there are outstanding problems with both companies' designs and each has been slow at submitting crucial data.

"We are signalling that some ... work may be required by [Areva and Westinghouse] beyond June 2011, when we plan to complete our assessment of the reactor design safety cases.

"We are flagging up these issues, so that the requesting parties can either redouble their efforts to address them, or begin the process of developing credible resolution plans."

The HSE said it was still possible for both designs to be accepted for use in the UK but flagged up "not insignificant technical issues". It is still hoping to complete the assessment and issue partial approval in June 2011, giving each company a rigid timetable for fixing further problems.

A spokesman for Areva and EDF said the partners were "encouraged" that the regulator had given approval to more technical parts of its design and not identified "any showstoppers".

Areva received a warning last year about possible problems with its reactor over concerns that its operational systems had not been adequately separated from its safety systems.

A few months later, the HSE issued an alert about Westinghouse's nuclear reactor designs, raising concerns about the robustness of its concrete reinforcements.

Britain is planning to build 10 new nuclear power stations over the next few decades, the first of which is meant to be up and running by 2018.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

Energy security.?...You must be joking!!!!

Please read this article from Der Speigel and realise that the German power companies are threatening their own government because they do not want to help the rest of society in Germany by paying small additional taxes on nuclear energy to keep the existing power plants open.

This is truely shocking and we will be asking our politicans to look at the role of Eon and RWE in the British economy.

They are being tantamount to highway robbers in Germany!

Merkel Tries to Regain Upper Hand in Energy Debate

By Katharina Peters

Before the financial crisis, Angela Merkel liked to present herself as the "climate chancellor," pushing for CO2 cuts and posing with glaciers. Now, with nuclear energy dominating the energy debate in Germany, Merkel has sought to turn back the clock.

The sky hung low and gray over Krempin, a small town in the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern -- not exactly ideal weather for a photo op. Nevertheless, Chancellor Angela Merkel posed gamely for the cameras as someone handed her a sunflower. At least the wind was blowing -- she was here, after all, to visit a wind park.

Then the sky cleared, and the sun even started shining. Merkel's photo-op was saved.

Krempin was the first stop on Merkel's four-day "energy tour" of Germany. The chancellor wanted to find out for herself "where we are strong and what still needs to be done," in the words of her government spokesman. The tour, which will take in wind farms, hydroelectric facilities and nuclear power plants, is being sold as something of an educational field trip.

Tiresome Debate

Behind all the nice-sounding spin lies a transparent political motivation. The chancellor wants to show that energy is once again a top priority for her. And she wants to distance herself from the tiresome debate about nuclear energy in Berlin, which is currently dominating the newspapers with all its tricky technical details about extending the lifespan of nuclear power plants and imposing a fuel-rod tax. The pictures of a beaming chancellor in front of wind turbines are just the thing to distract attention from the negative headlines.

The wind farm in Krempin, the first stop on the tour, was perfect for Merkel's purposes. Local residents are involved with the facility, which has been dubbed a "citizens' wind farm." The plant produces electricity for the local community of Carinerland as part of its efforts to become self-sufficient and is seen as a model project.

The locals had erected a white marquee tent. Children presented the chancellor with small plastic windmills. The Green Party may have criticized the event as a "show," but it was a show that fulfilled its purpose. The German government considers wind power to be the most important renewable resource for the future. By 2050, half of Germany's electricity will be generated from wind power, according to government plans.

Dusting Off Her Former Image

It's no coincidence that Wednesday also saw the publication of the new issue of Greenpeace Magazin, which contains an article by the chancellor praising the work of the environmental organization. "We are united by our common concern with preserving the natural environment, particularly in the fight against climate change," Merkel wrote in the magazine, which is widely read in Germany.

With the new initiative, Merkel is dusting off her former image as the "climate chancellor." Three years ago, Merkel surprised Germany and the world with her ambitious goals for battling climate change. She urged the European Union to take action and spoke of an "important crossroads," saying that "economics and ecology can be reconciled." She persuaded then-US President George W. Bush to at least make some small concessions and posed for photographs in front of Greenland's glaciers, wearing a red outdoor jacket.

But then the financial and economic crises came along, and the supposed visionary changed her tune. Suddenly, no decisions could be taken on climate change that would "threaten German jobs or investments," as Merkel put it in 2008. Since then, she has refrained from presenting any more bold plans for saving the climate.

New Energy Strategy to Be Unveiled

Even worse, the issue of nuclear power has been dominating the public debate on energy for the last few months. After Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen (CDU) announced in February that the operating lives of nuclear power stations should not be extended by more than eight years, a heated debate was sparked within the coalition government, especially within Merkel's own party, the center-right Christian Democratic Union.

A 2002 law passed by the government of then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder mandates that all of Germany's nuclear reactors should be shut down by the beginning of the next decade, but Merkel's party has long been interested in extending the lifespans of reactors. Germany's leading power companies insist that nuclear power is a vital part of the country's energy mix and warn that the country could face shortages if all nuclear reactors are shut down over the coming years.

The government is due to present its new energy strategy at the end of September, and Merkel is determined to regain the initiative before that deadline. Her spokesperson explained that nuclear power will only be one part of the energy mix to be unveiled in the new strategy -- the focus will be much more on the expansion of renewable energy. That approach is also laid down in the coalition agreement that Merkel's conservatives signed with the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) after last September's general election. It is the message that Merkel wanted to send with her photo-op amid the windmills of northern Germany.

Germans tend to be suspicious of nuclear energy, and the majority opposes keeping nuclear reactors in operation for longer than is planned. A recent poll revealed that 48 percent of people do not want any extension of reactor lifespans, while just 29 percent support an extension of a maximum of 10 years. A massive 77 percent oppose keeping the reactors running for an additional 15 years or longer.

Not So Photogenic

It's a debate that Merkel will not be able to avoid, no matter how many skillfully stage-managed visits to wind farms, hydroelectric plants, environmentally friendly heating plants and energy-efficient houses she makes during her energy tour.

After all, she will also be visiting a nuclear power plant in Lower Saxony next week. The pictures from that event will be less pretty -- it's doubtful that local children will be presenting the chancellor with models of miniature nuclear power plants. Merkel's talks there are also likely to be less pleasant. She will be meeting the bosses of the energy giants E.on and RWE, the same companies that recently threatened to immediately shut down their nuclear plants should the government go ahead with its plans to introduce a "fuel-rod tax" on reactors. The chancellor responded at the time by calling the move an unhelpful "threatening gesture."

It is not clear, however, when the German government is going to decide on the fuel-rod tax, which would bring in a predicted €2.3 billion ($2.9 billion) in annual revenues. The controversial tax was originally part of a draft law for the government's austerity package, which the cabinet is supposed to approve on Sept. 1.

Environment Minister Röttgen announced on Wednesday, however, that the decision would be delayed by several weeks. But the Finance Ministry immediately contradicted him, saying they would continue to assume that the fuel-rod tax will be approved at the beginning of September.

In any case, there is still plenty of time left to discuss energy. Unfortunately for Merkel, it will be nuclear power that continues to dominate the debate.

Friday, 20 August 2010

The Hinkley communities point the way ...............

EDF plans for a £4bn nuclear power plant are facing their second and final round of public scrutiny

Somerset really got the power to

derail the plans of EDF, the world’s

largest nuclear power generator?

Local opposition groups have

already had some success in


EDF to make changes to

its plans (see box below).

The Save Cannington Action

Group has successfully petitioned

against a temporary workers

camp being built in Cannington

village, seven miles from Hinkley.

The last nuclear power station to

be built in the UK, Sizewell B,

spent six years stuck in the planning

system with only 30 days

addressing local issues.

EDF Energy is now already in its

second 12-week public consultation

for its plans to build a new

£4 billion nuclear power plant at

Hinkley Point in Somerset.

October deadline

The deadline for responses to the

latest consultation is 4 October,

which will also be the final deadline

for the public to express their

concerns prior to EDF lodging a

planning application for the new

power plant, which is expected to

happen in December.

The thrust of the government’s

ideas for the future of the planning

system is rooted in localism,

with decisions to be taken by

local planning authorities and


But has the local population in

Meanwhile the Stop Hinkley

action group told Construction

News it is exploring possible legal

action to block the plans to build

the new nuclear plant and is currently

in talks with barristers.

“It is a bit like trying to stop a

juggernaut,” says Stop Hinkley coordinator

Jim Duffy.

“It is all pretty technical stuff.

We are talking to barristers at the

moment about what we can do to

stop it, but the average Joe doesn’t

stand a chance really.”

Anti-nuclear focus

Mr Duffy stressed his group are

not a nimby organisation but an

anti-nuclear group, and therefore

would be open to some other

forms of power generation in the


Local MP for Bridgwater and

West Somerset Iain Liddell-

Grainger is not opposed to the

plans in principle, but says compensation

would be needed for

putting a “new power station

slap-bang in the middle of

England’s countryside”.

The government has already

stressed it will provide no subsidy

for new nuclear power development

in the UK, leaving it up to

energy companies to fund, build,

operate and decommission the

plants themselves.

EDF claims to have carried out

one of the most extensive and

wide-ranging nuclear power station

consultations in the UK.

True representation

It is at great pains to stress that

this is a very real consultation and

the application will pass through

the Infrastructure Planning

Commission and an inquiry process

before being determined.

So how does the localism

agenda fit with the Hinkley Point

scheme? The Green Paper Open

Source Planning says localism is

about democratic and local control

of the planning system, and

that is the core principle.




Hinkley Point’s existing nuclear plant

EDF has made a number of changes

to its plans to build two new reactors

at Hinkley Point since its initial

12-week public consultation between

November 2009 and January 2010.

The key changes, which will be

detailed in EDF Energy’s ‘Preferred

Proposals’ published on 9 July, are:

n The southern limit of the main

construction activity has been moved

further north, in response to requests

from residents.

n Early woodland planting will also

take place to the south of the new

construction fence and a landscaping

bund (area of raised ground) will

screen the on-site accommodation


n Accommodation campuses for

workers are no longer planned for

surrounding villages and are now

concentrated in Bridgwater and on

the Hinkley Point C Development Site.

n Freight logistics facilities are

focused on sites near junctions 23

and 24 of the M5 and at Combwich


n The western route has been

selected for the Cannington bypass.

n No accommodation campus is

planned at Cannington.

n There will not be a freight logistics

facility at Cannington.

n The size of the park and ride facility

at Cannington has been reduced and

this will now be a temporary facility

used during the construction phase

and removed afterwards.

n No accommodation campus is

planned at Williton following

feedback from local residents.

n The size of the park and ride facility

at Williton has been reduced and this

will now be a temporary facility used

during the construction phase and

removed afterwards.

n Off-site accommodation campuses

will be located on two brownfield

sites in Bridgwater.

n The park and ride facility at

junction 24 of the M5 has been


n Freight logistics facilities will now

be located only at junctions 23 and 24

of the M5 and Combwich Wharf.

Views can be given at the public

exhibition events and will be fed into

the consultation. More information:

However, there is no plan to

make infrastructure proposals, in

effect, local matters.

In fact, the IPC is being


in a new guise within

the Planning Inspectorate, with

decisions being taken at national

level, first in terms of the planning

policy framework against

which the particular applications

for infrastructure are judged, and

second by determining applications

for these schemes at a

national level through the secretary

of state.

Planning and real estate specialist

at law firm Beachcroft Nick

Knapman argues localism is

always going to be at odds with

the most contentious applications

where the weight of local feeling

will be strongly for or against a


He says: “One cannot help but

feel that, if true localism were

Anticipated construction activity,

subject to relevant approvals


Enabling works on site


Preliminary works on site


Start of main construction


Peak construction activity


First nuclear reactor operational


Second nuclear reactor operational.

Removal of temporary structures with

land restoration beginning

“It would seem it Timeline

is going to be a

case of localism

for all but major



Nick knap man , bea chcroft

applied, then this decision would

be taken by local councillors who

would decide the planning merits

of the case along local lines,

being influenced by the weight of

local opinion for or against the


“Localism, the coalition says,

starts in grass-root decisions

about how an area is developed

through its development plan

against which planning applications

are judged.

“At that stage, local residents

will influence planning policy to

determine the future planning of

their area.

“However, with Hinkley Point,

the decision-making is being

taken away from local residents,

since planning policy is set out in

national planning guidance and

policy against which decisions are


“So is it would seem it is going

to be a case of localism for all but

major infrastructure projects.”

n The overall Hinkley Point

construction programme is

expected to take up to 10 years.

n The construction process should

boost the South-west economy by

more than £500 million, providing

jobs for up to 5,000 construction


n The new power station will also

create 900 permanent jobs during

its 60-year operation, injecting a

further £40m a year into the local


German Green Party say "The four big energy companies are acting like the four occupying powers.

The four big energy companies referred to in this NYT article are E.on, RWE,EnBW and Vatenfall!

The whole world needs to realise how ruthless and manipulative these companies are.

Thankfully even people in Germany seem to be kicking up against them.

If you work for these companies we are sure you realise the pressures for growth that you are under to achieve more and more growth!

Merkel Takes an ‘Energy Trip’


Published: August 18, 2010

New York Times
— Chancellor Angela Merkel, facing intense pressure from nuclear power companies to extend the life of their plants, began a cross-country tour Wednesday before deciding on a long-term energy policy with far-reaching implications for Germany, which has Europe’s largest economy.

Just back from her summer vacation, Mrs. Merkel is visiting wind, coal, solar and nuclear energy facilities in the next few days as part of her “energy trip.”

It is a strategy aimed at persuading the public that she is not beholden to the nuclear lobby, nor for that matter any other energy lobby, according to Steffen Seibert, the government spokesman. On Wednesday, Mrs. Merkel visited a wind park in the northeastern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

The German nuclear lobby is dominated by four companies: RWE, E.ON, EnBW and Vattenfall. In the past few weeks, they have been campaigning aggressively to persuade the public to vote to reverse a law enacted in 2002 by the Social Democratic-Green government at the time that would shut all the country’s 17 nuclear plants by 2022.

The companies also want the government to scrap plans to impose a new tax on fuel rods. They even threatened this week to close their facilities if the tax, due to be voted on by the cabinet next month, is introduced.

The tax is part of Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble’s plans to bring in up to €80 billion, or $103 billion, from 2011 to 2014 to help address the budget deficit. The fuel rod tax would bring in about €2.3 billion a year.

The government says it will not bow to pressure from the nuclear energy companies. But Sigmar Gabriel, the leader of the Social Democrats, now in the opposition, has told Mrs. Merkel to quit negotiating with the nuclear power lobby.

“There is no reason to negotiate with the nuclear power companies,” Mr. Gabriel said. “A fuel tax is not needed to pay for extending the life of the plants but to keep the taxpayers from footing the bill of up to €10 billion for refurbishing old, dilapidated waste storage facilities.”

Renate Künast, a parliamentary leader of the Green Party, also now in the opposition, accused the four nuclear energy companies of treating Germany as if it were their fief.

“The four big energy companies are acting like the four occupying powers,” Ms. Künast said, referring to France, Britain, Russia and the United States, which occupied Germany after 1945. She said the nuclear companies “have divided up the country into four zones and are trying to push through their interests.”

Undaunted by criticism, the nuclear energy companies have repeatedly argued that if the nuclear plants are shut in 2022, Germany’s energy security would be undermined. They have claimed that the availability of alternative sources of energy, particularly renewables that include wind and solar, would not be sufficient to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

Nuclear power accounts for 11 percent of Germany’s total primary energy supply; it provides over 21 percent of electricity generation.

JurgenTrittin, a Green leader and former environment minister, dismissed fears that Germany’s energy security would be compromised. Demand for renewable energy keeps increasing.

And the current environment minister, Norbert Röttgen from Mrs. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said this month that the government was committed to increasing the share of renewable energy in gross domestic consumption to nearly 20 percent by 2020, compared with about 10 percent today.

nuclear companies, trying to convince a skeptical public that atomic energy is safe, claim that it is efficient and important for fighting climate change.

Moreover, they say, if the plants were closed in 2022, it could lead to higher energy costs and job losses.

But analysts argue that the more Germany expands the renewable energy sector, whether for domestic consumption or exporting the equipment, the greater the potential for creating jobs.

According to the environment ministry, more than 250,000 people work in the renewable energy sector. Renewable energy accounts for 8.7 percent of the total primary energy supply but accounts for 15.6 percent of electricity generation.

Thursday, 19 August 2010

Latest news from EA about the GDA for the Areva and Westinghouse designs.

Please see the latest information on the GDA---Interestingly enough they say " and our conclusions, pending consultation, are that we could issue a statement of design acceptability for each design, although there are a number of potential issues still to be resolved"

Is that woolly or cashmere?!

Sounds like an appeasement to the nuclear industry so as to not upset the radioactive applecart!

Members of SANE we urge you to visit

The GDA is based on a coastal site----not a river site

With one reactor ....not up to three on site.

What relevence does this have to Shepperdine?

Also we need to know whether tritium or any other nucleids will be expelled via the cooling towers.

We must keep the pressure on DECC, our local politicians, the EA and HSE, IPC or the MIU.

Dear Stakeholder

Assessing new nuclear reactor designs

We are working with the Health and Safety Executive to make sure that any new nuclear power station built in England and Wales will meet high standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.

We’ve implemented a new approach called ‘Generic Design Assessment’ (GDA) which enables us to identify any problems and influence the designs at an early stage, before any major construction begins.

We have now completed our detailed assessments on two new reactor designs: Westinghouse’s AP1000™, and EDF and AREVA’s UK EPR™, and our conclusions, pending consultation, are that we could issue a statement of design acceptability (SODA) for each design, although there are a number of potential issues still to be resolved.

Consultation on our assessments of the new nuclear reactor designs

We are now consulting on our findings so far. The consultation began on 28 June and will last sixteen weeks, closing on 18 October.

Our consultation documents set out our findings so far for both the AP1000 and UK EPR designs and identifies where we require further information. We invite you to comment on our findings for both designs. GDA is solely to decide the acceptability of a design for permitting in the UK , and will not be used to express a preference for any particular design.

At the close of the consultation we will carefully consider the comments received before we reach a final decision on the acceptability of each of the two designs. We will publish the key issues raised during our consultation before the end of the year and come to a view about the acceptability of the designs in June next year.

You can comment on our findings

· Online: Visit the Environment Agency consultation on-line at:

· Call 08708 506 506* and ask for a consultation document

· Email and request the consultation papers.

* Approximate call costs: 8p plus 6p per minute (standard landline). Please note charges will vary across telephone providers.

Further information

Shake-up for planning runs into red tape

We can already see the threats from the global energy companies, with no concern for the UK except for the return they can make for their shareholders in Germany and France, threatening the UK and its government with "make life easy for us...or our money goes elsewhere" as the EEF agree.

For the EEF to call this a parochial issue shows that they are only interested in short term jobs in the development of the infrastructure and not for the long term wealth of UK Ltd.

The long term wealth of our country is dependent on a wholly UK owned energy infrastructure that is not subject to the casino investements of various energy companies such as E.on , RWE and EDF , Iderberola and Vatenfall.

The government is making the correct steps by encouraging all communities to have potential interests in their own electricity production and reducing the boa like grip of the above companies.

Shake-up for planning runs into red tape

By Fiona Harvey and Jim Pickard

Only two planning applications for big infrastructure projects have been considered by the government agency set up to streamline planning rules in almost six months of operation.

Meanwhile at least 50 projects – ranging from wind farms and nuclear power stations to road improvements – have been in preparation, many for more than a year, with developers struggling to draw up the paperwork demanded by the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

One company told the Financial Times that the lengthy process required before the agency would accept an application for consideration meant the new system was no quicker than the one it replaced.

Another said: “The process is incredibly complex, you have to wade through all this paperwork.

“It’s enough to make companies think very hard about whether to go through the IPC at all or whether to go through the old council route instead.”

The government is planning to scrap the agency, replacing it with a body called the Major Infrastructure Unit, in a move that is also causing concern to business.

Infrastructure remains a priority in planning changes

The two projects still under consideration by the IPC – an electricity cable to connect a wind farm to the grid in Wales, and an energy-from-waste plant in Bedfordshire – would under current rules require a decision within a year.

However, uncertainty over the government’s plans to reform the system mean even this timetable is now in doubt.

The IPC was set up in October 2009 and opened this March in the expectation that it would speed up planning applications by removing some of the decision-making responsibilities from local councils. However, applications to go through the IPC are more burdensome and require detailed paperwork and audits.

The IPC acknowledged: “There is a lot of work that has to be done before the applicant can present the application, environmental impact reports, local impact reports, all this needs to be done beforehand.”

Companies said that the new system was “frontloaded”, with applicants required to do more “scoping” and consultation before the IPC would accept an application. Scottish and Southern Energy said its opinion of the IPC was “fairly neutral”, but the system was still “very complex”.

RWE Npower told the FT that the “frontloading” of the process should ensure all companies reached a high standard of “stakeholder involvement”.

However, companies are concerned that sweeping away the IPC will not improve a system widely accepted as too complex.

Some warned against making ministers responsible for final decisions, as they would be unwilling to take tough decisions that could be politically unpopular.

“Creating this new planning process and then dismantling it immediately afterwards does not make sense,” said RWE.

The EEF manufacturers’ organisation echoed these concerns: “We have to ensure that parochial preoccupations are put aside in the national interest. Big companies can invest anywhere, and a factor in their decision is the planning system.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Germany to postpone nuclear tax decision:

In our opinion the polluter must always pay and if that means more taxes and lower profit margins for these global power companies who are only too keen to exploit our earths wonders.

Our concern on a local level is that this decision will mean the German and Swedish companies concerned will be putting more pressure on the UK government to get soft and compliant deals for there investments in this country.

Germany to postpone nuclear tax decision:

Credit: Reuters/Tobias Schwarz

Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:26pm EDT

DUESSELDORF Germany (Reuters) - German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said on Wednesday that he believes the government will postpone a decision on a contentious nuclear power tax until the end of September.

"That is also my understanding," said Roettgen, also charged with the energy portfolio, in response to a Reuters report that the government would delay the decision until the end of September when it presented its energy policy for coming decades.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government had initially planned to present the decision at the start of the month together with other details of Germany's austerity drive.

Postponing the tax decision would give Berlin more time to resolve the stand-off with utility companies E.ON, RWE, EnBW and Vattenfall Europe, infuriated by the proposed new tax. (Reporting by Tom Kaeckenhoff, Writing by Sarah Marsh)

Tuesday, 17 August 2010

The reality is that the nuclear industry is waning!

The reality of nuclear energy is inconsistent with dreams of a renaissance

Nuclear energy is not on the rise – the hard facts point to a continuing, slow phase-out around the world
Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk
Sizewell B nuclear power station in Suffolk. Of the more than 200 countries in the world, only 30 use nuclear power. Photograph: Graham Turner
Repeatedly in recent years there have been calls for a revival of nuclear power. Yet that renaissance never seems to come.
Of the more than 200 countries in the world, only 30 use nuclear power. In July 2010, a total of 439 nuclear power plants with a net installed capacity of 373.038 gigawatts (GW) were connected to various national electricity grids, about 1.2GW more than at the beginning of 2006.
Roughly 16% of total energy needs (up to 25% in the highly industrialised countries) are now met by electric energy. Nuclear fission's contribution to total electric energy has decreased from about 18% more than 10 years ago to about 14% in 2008. On a worldwide scale, nuclear energy is thus only a small component of the global energy mix, and its share, contrary to widespread belief, is not on the rise.
During 2009, for example, nuclear power plants provided 2,560 terawatt hours (TWh)– equivalent to 2,560bn kilowatt hours of electric energy, about 1.6% lower than during 2008 and almost 4% lower than during the record year of 2006. Early results for the first four months of 2010 for the OECD countries indicate that so far the 2010 results are as low or lower than last year.
During the next five years, on average, roughly 10 new nuclear reactors are expected to become operational every year. But this assumes that all are constructed according to schedule, and the nuclear industry has rarely met its promised construction deadlines. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), 17 new reactors should have become operational between 2007 and 2009. But only five came onstream during this period – three in 2007 and two in 2009.
Moreover, four reactors were de-commissioned during 2009, and a larger number of reactors in Japan and Germany are not in use, owing to various technical stoppages. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will most likely be closed over the next 10-15 years.
Furthermore, during the past 10 years, only about two-thirds of worldwide demand for nuclear fuel was met from resources obtained from mining. The remaining 20,000 tonnes came from so-called secondary uranium sources – mainly inventories held by utilities and governments, reprocessed nuclear fuel, and stockpiles of depleted uranium. The supply from these sources will drop by roughly 10,000 tonnes at the end of 2013, when the Megatons to Megawatt programme between Russia and the United States – which recycles highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants – comes to an end.
Current projections indicate that uranium shortages in the coming years can be avoided only if existing and new uranium mines operate according to plan. Indeed, extrapolations of global supply that foresee an increase in uranium mining are based on claims about the ability to expand output in Kazakhstan. So far, uranium mining in Kazakhstan has increased roughly as expected, from 4,357 tonnes in 2005 to 14,000 tonnes in 2009.
But it remains to be seen if the uranium mining in this country can indeed increase further. According to the WNA's latest estimates, from July 2010, the expected uranium extraction figure for 2010 has actually been decreased to 15,000 tonnes.
The view that the amount of energy derived from nuclear power worldwide will continue its slow decrease during the coming years is further supported by the 2008 annual report of the Euratom Supply Agency, which coordinates the long-term uranium needs of nuclear power plants within the European Union. According to the agency's forecast, uranium demand in Europe will fall from 21,747 tonnes in 2010 to roughly 16,000 tonnes by 2024.
These numbers indicate that the EU, currently producing about one-third of the world's nuclear electric energy, is heading for a reduction in nuclear-energy production of up to 20% over the coming 10 years. One can also expect that the current worldwide economic crisis will not help to accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants and new uranium mines.
In summary, the hard facts about nuclear energy are inconsistent with the possibility of a worldwide renaissance of nuclear energy. Indeed, they point toward a continuing slow phase-out of nuclear energy in most of the large OECD countries.
It seems unavoidable that energy consumers, especially in many rich countries, will have to learn to exchange their current worries about the distant future consequences of global warming for the reality of energy shortages during periods of peak demand. Such shortages could result either in chaotic supplies and power outages or in a coordinated policy of energy rationing.
In the absence of nuclear-energy revival, most of us will be forced to reduce our direct energy consumption. Let us hope that we can learn to adapt to simpler – though perhaps still satisfying – lifestyles.
• Michael Dittmar is a physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule), and works at Cern, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research in Geneva.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.

Masters Student sends his thanks to all people who helped him in his studies

Richard Sewell who is studying for an MSc in Environmental Planning at Liverpool John Moores' has asked me to thank all of the people who contributed to the phone interviews he carried out last week.

Richard is getting a handle on the potential flooding risks associated with any any potential development of a new nuclear plant at the Shepperdine site and how such risks would be mitigated.

He is especially grateful to Tim Proudler who was able to give him a significant amount of help from the developers perspective.

We are always willing to help students and researchers who need any help in our opinions/standpoint about anything to do with the Shepperdine project.

Monday, 16 August 2010

E-or the donkey says " Please do not dig up my thistles"

Hello everybody! I am E-or the donkey and I am concerned that a big group of powerful humans with lots of energy that sounds a little like me is going to destroy my favoutite patch of thistles on Jobs Green Farm in Shepperdine.

I have asked young Christopher, a good kind human, who I  know well and who generally likes natural things like wind and sun and the power of our good clean river,...ooh that almost makes me happy, to protect everything that is good in my fields and help my friends who bounce from village to village  (oldbury to shepperdine).

But I am told that I might have to leave my precious trees and thistles and the nasty humans will start to dig them up and replace them with concrete towers.

I hope that Christopher and his friends in the very big house in Lundin can stop the nasty people from saying "if we dont get newkleer then all the lights  in the land of maminals will go out" and then hurting me and my friends.

Please Mister in charge of the nasty bunch of humans who sound like my name go away from Shepperdine and our trees and thistles and dont deatroy any maminals anywhere including your own fields whereever they may be...over the big water which froths.

Please Christopher help me....E-or.......a sad but proud donkey!


Horizon---E-on/RWE to choose preferred supplier before GDA is complete

In this article Horizon---the partnership between German mega power generators E-on and RWE say they will choose from Areva or Westinghouse by the end of the year.

As everybody knows, E-on prefer Areva and RWE prefer Westinghouse.

Just say, they choose one supplier in December 2010, but by June 2011 the cut-off for GDA, that particular manufacturer has not satisfied the EA or HSE of the integrity of their reactors then what will happen?

Will they then jump on to the other horse?....for the big gamble?....or is the GDA a big con that will allow both through in the end? matter what?

Can anyone from Areva explain to us what the difference is between the reactor at Olkiluoto and apparently the new improved version at Flamanville that will be used in the UK?

13 August 2010

Horizon Nuclear Power has signed contracts with both Westinghouse and Areva for preparatory design studies for a proposed new power station at Wylfa in North Wales. Horizon plans to select its preferred vendor around the end of the year.

Early Work Agreements have been signed with Areva for its EPR reactor and Westinghouse’s UK delivery organization Nuclear Power Delivery UK (NPDUK) for the AP1000. Under both agreements preliminary work is to be carried out between now and the end of 2010.

Alan Raymant, COO of Horizon said: "We are already working with both companies in a formal procurement process regarding our preferred vendor. Progressing with some studies now, for both designs, will support our planning and licensing process by allowing us to develop the site specific designs, and make us a more informed buyer.”

Both vendors welcomed the agreements.

Managing Director of Nuclear Power Delivery UK, Dr Rita Bowser, said: "Today's announcement of the Early Works Agreement with our team is a very positive sign of Horizon's determination to make sure that they are able to secure an attractive bid from us while maintaining their timeline.”

President of Areva UK Jean-Jacques Gautrot said: “We are delighted that Horizon has awarded us this early work agreement which will further support our plans for a fleet of EPR reactors in the UK.”

Coalition government to end easy energy franchises with a guaranteed return

What fantastic news ! Greg Barker is going full steam ahead in ending the oligopoly culture of Britains generators.

If these global companies are allowed to make guaranteed returns from low risk high reward simple businesses then we as individuals or communities should be allowed to graze at the oasis of energy.

We have to create a more local, decentralised energy system

When David Cameron became Prime Minister he pledged that the new Coalition would be the greenest government ever. As Climate Change Minister my job is to help deliver this promise.

By Greg Barker, Climate Change Minister

However, I am glad to say that the old debate of green energy versus energy security has become increasingly irrelevant. That is because in the 21st century energy security and climate change are two sides of the same coin.

At a time when historic production levels in the North Sea are declining, cutting Britain's dependence on expensive and volatile imported oil, coal and gas will increase our energy independence and be good for the environment.

It will take more than Jam and Jerusalem to create David Cameron's Big SocietyRenewable electricity, ranging from small-scale CHP (Combined Heat and Power) to large-scale offshore wind turbines, as well as new nuclear and clean coal, can help reinforce the frontline of Britain's energy security defences as well as cutting dangerous CO₂ emissions.

However, the old dominance of the energy economy by a few large corporations is also being challenged. Our homes, businesses and communities can also become dynamic players in the new energy economy by producing their own green electricity and selling it back into the national grid. New feed-in tariffs – a system of financial incentives to encourage households and communities to produce their own electricity – are at the heart of our efforts to "green" Britain and empower consumers and to create a more local, decentralised energy system.

With interest rates providing little return on financial investments, the domestic and community scale feed-in tariffs provide some of the best secure investment returns available in the market.

Not only can you now make money by producing your own energy at home, but by cutting your domestic carbon footprint you would also be doing something for the next generation and energy security at the same time.

We must also show a greater sense of ambition to lead the world in marine renewables. Thanks to our coastline, this country is blessed with huge potential for a range of exciting new offshore wind, wave and tidal energy technologies. We are determined to create the right environment so that developers of marine power see the UK as the best place to invest and grow. It cannot happen instantly but there is no doubt that by the 2020s we could be tapping the seas around our island for a much greater share of our energy needs. Britannia may no longer rule the waves, but she should lead the way in harnessing their energy.

Since 2002, the Renewables Obligation – a mechanism to boost renewable energy – has supported large-scale renewable electricity generation. But to meet the 2020 target to produce 15pc of all our country's energy needs from renewable sources, we need to raise our game even more and increase renewable electricity by a mammoth six times the current levels. In doing so, we must constantly be mindful that consumers and businesses will want to focus on where the returns will be greatest.

However, whatever changes we implement to increase the level of large-scale renewable roll-out, investors can be certain that there will be no surprises or retrospective policy changes as we recognise that investor confidence is key to deployment.

Thanks to the dire state of the public finances bequeathed to us by Gordon Brown's government, we are having to make tough choices in terms of how we allocate public sector funding to support emerging technologies. But support for the growth of both renewable electricity and renewable heat remain a priority. However, robust public policy for the long term is also a vital part of the equation.

So I want to send a clear message to industry and international investors: If you invest in the UK, whether it is in micro-hydro or huge offshore wind, you can expect plenty of 'TLC' – transparency, longevity and certainty in the new Government's energy policy.

The energy sector is entering a period of extraordinary change and investment but new green technologies must seize the financial and job opportunities this offers and help us grow out of recession and rebuild a more resilient and broadly-based economy.

Green Britain is open for business and with a new sense of purpose we can lead the world.

Britain is struggling to power the nuclear revolution

Britain needs to own its own energy infrastructure to permit proper competition in the market.

The more we dwell in the power systems of the late 20th century and the current globalisation which sees Europe with no more than a handful of generators and suppliers the more vulnerable we are to lack of energy security.

The government is correct to stimulate small power initiatives to remove the energy oligopoly that exists.

The industry is full of over paid under achieving executives with feather bedding pensions who have never had to properly compete in proper markets----Ofgem please consider the splitting up of the energy franchises.

Britain is struggling to power the nuclear revolution

By Rowena Mason and Abigail Townsend

Published: 10:30PM BST 14 Aug 2010

Previous1 of 3 ImagesNext Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant. The Government has pledged not to spend a penny of taxpayers' money on nuclear power Photo: Alamy

Scientists working in a fusion reactor at a nuclear power plant Photo: Alamy

Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem energy secretary, last week pledged that the UK's £50bn nuclear programme is on track

China started generating electricity from the first fourth generation nuclear station without fanfare last month, using largely home-grown technology that reduces waste, increases efficiency and vastly brings down costs compared with existing plants.

It's only a trial project, with the first commercial-scale model planned for 2020, but nevertheless is a step towards production-line nuclear plants that it aims to produce for the world. If it can bring down costs, China is likely to have customers galore rushing to reduce their carbon emissions by providing the equivalent of Ikea flat-pack parts for countries from Belarus to Ghana.

But as China throws money at pioneering technology and plans to build 153 stations using basic versions of existing designs, Western nations are struggling to make the old economics of nuclear power add up.

Delays and cost over-runs are already plaguing the construction of new nuclear plants in France and Finland. But Chris Huhne, the Lib Dem energy secretary, last week pledged that the UK's £50bn programme is on track. This is despite an incomplete planning system, industry concerns about funding and no firm plans for disposing of radioactive waste.

The timetable already appears to be slipping. New planning laws to speed up approval of nuclear power were meant to be in place this summer, but the new Government has put them under review until April 2011.

EDF, which aims to build the UK's first two stations in partnership with Centrica, insists that it will still put in its first planning application this winter – but there is currently no concrete system to assess its proposals. The French-state owned giant has gone from citing 2017 as the date for providing the first power from its station to 2018 – while insisting that nothing has held up plans.

Small delays are not insignificant, according to Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of Centrica, which is part of the consortium aiming to get final approval by the end of 2011. "The consequence would actually be potentially losing our place in the queue for a lot of the large forgings and the other bits of critical long lead-time items," he says.

"Then it doesn't become a month-by-month slippage, but it becomes potentially a much more significant slippage which has consequences for energy security and meeting our climate change objectives."

Within the industry, there is a more deep-seated fear that Britain's current funding plans will not be sufficient to see the first cement poured in the ground. Power stations may be cheap to operate, but are mind-bogglingly expensive to build. Both America and France have opted to underwrite their nuclear programmes to take away the risk of building nationally critical plants from commercial utilities.

The imperative to build nuclear is strong – the UK needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 80pc by 2050 and must replace ageing coal-powered plants. Britain, however, believes nuclear can go it alone – with a bit of helpful regulation to sweeten the investment climate and nudge it on its way.

Despite heavily subsidising to renewable energy, the Government is standing firm on a pledge not to spend a penny of taxpayers' money on equally low-carbon nuclear power. Nuclear is actually inexpensive in comparison to offshore wind farms, according to Matthew Farrow, head of energy planning at the CBI.

"In terms of power output and carbon saved, nuclear could be two to three times cheaper than offshore wind," he says. "Because of this we think it should take its place alongside renewables and fossil fuels as part of a balanced energy mix."

By 2030, British taxpayers will have spent £96bn on directly funding low-carbon energy – largely offshore windfarms, but also £8bn for windmills and solar panels on roofs, £12bn for green heat pumps and £9bn for clean coal. As it stands, nuclear will get nothing. "The existing mix of policies is confused and conflicting in places," says Dr Robert McIlveen, author of a new report Greener, Cheaper, for the Policy Exchange. "Britain currently has a varied set of policies for subsidising different technologies, and taxes which are in some cases are arbitrary," he says. His co-author, Professor Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University specialising in utilities, agrees. "What we're currently doing is the most expensive way of making emission reductions you can conceive of," he says.

He believes it is possible to build nuclear without state backing, but only with radical changes to the electricity market, such as the introduction of long-term supply contracts rather than spot prices.

"Nuclear could be two to three

times cheaper than offshore wind"

- Matthew Farrow, head of energy planning at the CBI

The only current measure to help nuclear on its way is a planned "carbon floor price" – which will artificially raise the price of carbon allowances under the European emissions trading scheme. This makes generating low-carbon nuclear power more attractive relative to high-carbon gas or coal plants.

But Peter Atherton, a utilities analyst at Citigroup, believes that this will not be enough incentive for new construction – a view shared by German utility giants RWE and E.ON, who plan to build the third and fourth UK nuclear stations.

"Is it enough? EDF says it is, all the others say it isn't," he says. "It's very unlikely to be enough. Our view is that it would be extremely unlikely that private investors can be sufficiently rewarded for the risks associated with new nuclear power in the UK because the developer takes all the major risks – construction, operation and power price. They are so huge – we call them corporate killers – that it's extraordinarily unlikely that the power price can stay high enough across the life of the power station to generate the sort of return that these risks require."

EDF was the main campaigner for a carbon floor price, and it will benefit by an estimated £350m a year in windfall profits for its existing plants when the measure is introduced. But EDF no longer appears to believe that a carbon floor price will be enough to kickstart nuclear building. While it may have campaigned for the measure for months, sources close to the French state utility company now say it is considered "just a first step".

Further energy market reforms will be needed to see the first nuclear plants built, its executives say.

It is entirely possible that the UK will have backtrack on its refusal to subsidise nuclear plants, says Lakis Athanasiou, analyst at Evolution Securities: "The Government says it's not going to subsidise but if they introduce capacity payments for new plants, is that a subsidy or not? It's something that comes in the back door – there's a lot of semantics going on here."

He believes the best way is to follow the US and French model of simply providing guarantees for debt financing to soothe investors' fears about the possibility of default if nuclear costs run out of control. "The government should provide guarantees for debt," he says. "The minimum carbon price is just a joke. Forget about it. No one is going to invest when they won't get paid back before 2020 or beyond."

Friday, 13 August 2010

Samantha arranges special courier delivery for the newsletter

Samantha Stagg, the PR representative for Horizon Nuclear Power arranged a special delivery of approx 20 newsletters to one of our members who had been waiting for it for one month.

Reg of White Cottage, Shepperdine (thats DINE not DEEN or DENE) said " I spoke to Samantha yesterday afternoon about not receiving the newsletter by hand and also the fact that another family hadn't received it either"

"She asked me if I had big dogs,whether I had a letterbox...whether if I had checked with my wife to see if she had received it and binned it, or it could have blown away"

" I said I did have two dogs---but would the distributors not pass the information back to you? She said they would."

"I must say it was absolutely brilliant that Samantha proceeded to arrange the delivery by courier within two hours of speaking to her"

Reg wasn't the only one who did not receive the newsletter--Also John and Sarah Grey were eglected as well.

Reg says " I popped down to the Grey's farm and left a newsletter on the doorstep on behalf of Horizon"

See attached emails:-

Hi Reg

Thanks – we received our copy tonight!

Sara and John


From: reg illingworth []

Sent: 12 August 2010 14:56

To: Samantha Stagg

Cc: john and sara grey; eon

Subject: Newsletter

Hi Samantha

Sorry to trouble you again but both Judie and I and John,Sarah and George Grey have still to receive a hard copy of the newsletter.

It may be worth checking with the distributors as they are not doing their job properly.

I just wonder who else is missing a copy?

It is important that at such a sensitive time that as many people as possible know of Horizon's information.

Kind regards


Site Meter