Stop Hinkley Press Release
High Court judgement welcomed by campaigners
15 February 2007
Campaigners welcomed a High Court judgement which today said the Government's recent Energy Review, promoting nuclear power, was 'deeply flawed' and 'misleading'. The judge declared that the Government had not been open on areas such as nuclear waste and costs of the nuclear project and a new Review must take place.
Stop Hinkley campaigners said there must now be a rethink of those recommendations and the proposals of the previous 2003 Energy Review taken on board whilst we await a new thorough and unbiased public consultation. Stop Hinkley had written a submission to the Review but criticised the process for being an obvious rubber-stamping exercise of a political decision already taken by Tony Blair.
Jim Duffy, Stop Hinkley Coordinator said: "This knocks back any credibility the nuclear project ever had. Downing Street took over what should have been a scientific consultation and bent the process to promote Tony Blair's plan. The High Court has seen through that illegal sham."
He added: "The earlier unbiased and comprehensive 2003 Energy Review stated we should promote renewable energy coupled with energy conservation and micro-generation of electricity. It doubted the contribution of nuclear power to a sustainable energy policy that would help climate-change and said there were unresolved questions around creating more nuclear waste and on public acceptability."
"Hinkley C now looks more doubtful and certainly much further in the future."
Jim Duffy, Stop Hinkley Coordinator
GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE:
Government's Nuclear Plans declared unlawful by High Court
For immediate release: 15 February 2007
THE GOVERNMENT'S decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was today declared to be unlawful in the High Court. The Government will have to conduct a new, fuller review if they want to justify the future of nuclear power in the UK .
In the Royal Courts of Justice in London , Mr Justice Sullivan agreed with Greenpeace, who brought the case, that the energy review was not the 'fullest public consultation' the Government had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.
Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available by the Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".
The court had heard last week that the Government failed to present clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste and financial costs. Greenpeace and other groups were also denied the opportunity to comment on relevant documents which the Government failed to disclose.
Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The Government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a sham, and we're pleased that the Judge has agreed with us.
"The Government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.
"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change as it only represents 3.6% of our total energy. It's entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective, safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs and cut climate change emissions. 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut C02 emissions by 4%. As well as being too little, it will also be too late. Climate wrecking emissions need to be cut now, not in 20 years." ENDS
For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255
Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change:
10 new nuclear power stations would only cut the UK 's c02 emissions by 4%. This would be wiped out by the predicted rise in aircraft emissions alone.
New nuclear power is not a relevant or timely response to the immediate need to reduce C02 emissions. Any nuclear new build programme would not see the first reactor come online until around 2018 at the earliest, with the main delivery of the programme not arriving until around 2025-2030. C02 emissions need to be cut years before.
Nuclear power's effect on C02 emissions is very small. Although nuclear power currently provides about 20% of our electricity (reactor problems regularly reduce this), it only provides 3.6% of the UK 's total energy.
Nuclear power stations only marginally address hot water and central heating needs, and don't meet needs for transport at all.
There is no safe solution to nuclear waste.
There is a much cheaper, better way to meet our energy needs and cut C02 emissions. A decentralised energy system will slash C02 and cost far less than a new generation of nuclear power stations, making maximum use of combined heat and power and renewable energy.
Greenpeace wins nuclear power challenge
Greenpeace has won a high court ruling which could force the government to rethink its plans to build nuclear power stations throughout the UK .
A High Court judged ruled that that the consultation process undertaken last year was 'seriously flawed' and 'procedurally unfair' and granted Greenpeace an order quashing the review as 'unlawful'.
'This was a comment on a political process and not of the feasibility of nuclear power,' said Dr Mark Levy, KNOO Consortium Research Manager, Imperial College London. 'It is vital that the public should be an informed customer and that long term decisions should be made with public backing. This will only happen if all sides of the argument engage in full, frank and open discussion.
'The debate of new nuclear build still has legs, however if we continue to run away from a decision, we will become more and more reliant upon electricity imports, which is a situation that is not in our nations best interests.'
The DTI added: 'Tackling climate change takes leadership, taking on tough long-term choices. This is why we continue to believe nuclear power has a role to play in cutting emissions and helping to give this country the energy security it needs. This is why we will press on with publication of the Energy White Paper and why we are confident in the strength of our arguments to engage in further consultation.'