Beckett points to new era of nuclear power - The Herald
Beckett points to new era of nuclear power - The Herald
Beckett points to new era of nuclear power
MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political Correspondent
November 28 2005
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
Beckett points to new era of nuclear power
MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political Correspondent
November 28 2005
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear option warned against backing a new build programme, the environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry ? traditionally a lossmaker ? would have three or four decades of guaranteed profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The government's chief scientific officer should be advising the government about various options that exist for tackling climate change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
posted by Marcel at 2:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home