Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Britain must have 'atomic ambition' – with 40% of energy from nuclear

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 August 2009
MORE than a third of the UK's electricity should be generated from nuclear energy, an official report urged yesterday.
Former energy minister Malcolm Wicks said between 35 and 40 per cent of electricity should be generated from nuclear energy after 2030.

He said this would help to improve future energy security by decreasing reliance on imported gas, and cut green
house gas emissions.

About 15 per cent of electricity in the UK is provided by nuclear. The Scottish Government has ruled out any new nuclear power stations being built north of the Border and intends to focus on renewables and clean-coal technology to meet climate change targets and achieve energy security.

Mr Wicks said: "At a time when the UK is becoming increasingly reliant on imported fossil fuels, we need to ask whether the UK should be more ambitious on nuclear power.

"When national security considerations are added to climate change exigencies, I believe the answer is yes."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown welcomed the report, saying: "We are already taking a number of responsible, far-sighted steps to put the UK on a secure, low-carbon, affordable energy footing in the long-term and I am grateful for the work undertaken by Malcolm Wicks."

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We've never set a number on the amount of nuclear we want, but nor have we ever set a cap. We think 40 per cent of electricity could be low carbon by 2020, including the first new nuclear and beyond that it will have to play a significant role if we're to all but decarbonise electricity by the middle of the century."

WWF Scotland's director, Dr Richard Dixon, said Mr Wicks' recommendation must be resisted.

"Nuclear power is a polluting and expensive distraction from the real action required by politicians to tackle climate change," he said.

"The recommendations in this report to effectively rig the energy market in favour of new nuclear must not be allowed to undermine continued support for renewables."

And Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, said:

"The best way to secure Britain's power supplies is to cut out the appalling waste in the system and to harness the huge renewable energy sources across our windswept island."

Dr Neil Bentley, the CBI's director of business environment, said: "We agree the best way of delivering energy security and meeting climate change targets is by developing a balanced and cost-effective mix of energy sources, including wind and other renewables, nuclear, gas and clean coal."

Shadow energy minister Charles Hendry said it was an "appalling legacy of this government" that there were only 14 days' gas storage in the UK, compared with 100 in Germany and 120 in France.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 August 2009 11:51 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Nuclear energy
 
1

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 06/08/2009 08:59:40
WWF and the other eco idiots have no choice in the matter, it is either nuke which is clean, coal which is dirty or the lights go out.
2

Unimpressed one,

06/08/2009 09:24:04
How could an organisation which claims to champion the natural world, prefer wholesale industrialisation of the countryside in the form of windmills as opposed to a few nuclear power stations which cause minimal impact on the environment?

This is a glaring example of the nutty agenda the eco-facists adhere to in that their anti-nuclear principles are more important for them to stand by than real conservation. It proves, if proof were needed, that like the failed communist system, they twist their skewed beliefs every few years and think nothing of the fact that their claims are completely irrational and contradictory.
3

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 06/08/2009 09:24:31
The only person with stake in actual production of goods and services, Dr Neil Bentley uttered the most common sense. A balanced portfolio of energy sources is what is needed taking into account new developments in clean coal and nuclear as well as hydro-electric and dare I say windmills.

The eco-bams are out with their usual clutch of daft arguments wanting it all in terms of "climate change" - sorry - you're up the wrong track there - and coming home to a warm house and at least some modern conveniences. They appear to want to revert to some sort of sylvan dreamland where nothing bad happens and somehow everyone is fed and clothed and housed by magic dust. A Greenpeace is what you get as you huddle in your freezing cave with a grass sandwich.

4

Unimpressed one,

06/08/2009 10:34:55
"WWF Scotland's director, Dr Richard Dixon, said Mr Wicks' recommendation must be resisted."

Eco-fascism.

It's a pity we haven't got the same scientific backbone as the Germans appear to have found:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views

They at least, have found an antidote to the "emperor's new clothes syndrome" - one which our politicians, media and scientific establishment have yet to discover.
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/08/2009 13:17:38
Here's a thought...

Within about 10 years, if we keep burning gas in power stations, the UK is going to be dependant upon a gas tanker arriving in Milford Haven from the Middle East every 5 hours. If for any reason, one does not arrive on time, then some of the lights WILL go out until such time as it does arrive.

Burning gas in power stations is about as brain-dead as you can get. It was criminal to let our nuclear industry decline. We should be taking steps NOW to urgently build and commission nuclear power stations and to hell with the bam-pots who don't agree.

Clean coal? Yeah. Fine idea but secondary to nuclear. Windmills? Once again, commendable but second to coal. If we don't get our priorities right and stop listening to the morons, we ARE going to be in trouble in the future.

This is nothing to do with climate change, global warming or "carbon emissions". It is to do with the future energy requirements of this country so we ought to pull our fingers out and just get on with it.
6

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 06/08/2009 15:05:45
Usual havering garbage from Dixon and Oakley. I wish they would tell us exactly how they would provide a stable and reliable electricity system for Scotland/UK instead of ranting about what should NOT be done!!
7

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 06/08/2009 15:08:28
FoE and Greenpeace seem to be arguing for a country covered in windmills - that's hardly an environmentally acceptable solution particularly when not one kWh will be produced when there's an area of high pressure over the country.
8

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/08/2009 15:25:45
#7:

FoE and Greenpeace are certifiable lunatics. What did you expect them to say?

Like I say, the sooner we stop listening to all the raving fanatics the better.
9

Geomac 1,

Scotland, UK 06/08/2009 15:28:33
#8
Where do these fanatics get their money from? Are the subsidised by government?
10

Unimpressed one,

06/08/2009 16:07:26
#9, No, their supported by gullible fools that are persuaded to adopt pandas.
11

John (Again),

Bury St Edmunds 06/08/2009 16:14:33
For those able to read German see

http://www.welt.de/wams_print/article4104625/Renaissance-mit-Hindernissen.html

The Die Welt correspondent believes that the nuclear "renaissance" will never be more than a theoretical question.

At least it is a reasonable proposition that in Scotland the winds will blow, creating waves and the tides will run and there will be enough sunlight for solar power. Nothing else is secure.

We have to trim our energy use to what they can bring. Even biomass is now imported to make biodiesel and to fuel power stations. Oil, gas, coal (75%) and uranium (100%) are all to some degree imported.

It's a question of survival in a world faced with dwindling concentrations of resources, requiring ever more energy to extract. Fanatics have no contribution to make on either side of the energy question.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/08/2009 17:02:50
#9:

Not sure. It would be interesting to see a copy of their accounts though.
13

westenders999,

06/08/2009 22:16:22
11. The "theoretical question" bit is not what the correspondent thinks but a quote from the American head of energy regulation. Might be right for America but not necessarily for us.
Uranium is imported but some of the bigger sources like Australia are a bit more attractive than Iran.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.