[NukeNet] Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review - Firm that handled submissions 'misrepresented' benefits of atomic power

[MJ]

Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review

Firm that handled submissions 'misrepresented' benefits of atomic power

Juliette Jowit, environment editor
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1838079,00.html

Key consultants working on the government's controversial energy review,
which recommended a new generation of nuclear power stations, have strong
links to the nuclear industry, The Observer can reveal.

Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology,
formed by the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to handle
hundreds of submissions to the review's public consultation earlier this
year. The company has sold most of its nuclear businesses, but still has a
nuclear waste unit, and senior executives and staff have links to the old
authority and other parts of the nuclear industry.

Critics claim objections to nuclear energy were ignored or misrepresented
in AEA Technology's report. However, The Observer can reveal that the
report found nuclear power got by far the lowest support of 15 energy
options. The revelations will add to widespread criticism that the review,
published last month, was a 'sham', designed to push through nuclear
energy because it was favoured by the Prime Minister.

Dai Davies, the independent MP whose question in the House of Commons
forced ministers to reveal the identity of the consultants, said he was
not anti-nuclear but was worried the company's industry links would
undermine public confidence in the review.

'I wondered why it [nuclear] was being pushed and pushed and pushed,' said
Davies, who stood as an independent after quitting Labour because he felt
it had changed too much. 'Vested interests is the worry... Unless we are
open and honest and debate openly, that suspicion is going to be with us
for a long, long time.'

David Moorhouse, chief executive of Lloyd's Register, the risk management
group which has analysed risks in the energy industry, said he also does
not oppose nuclear, but was worried about using a company 'whose
livelihoods depended on nuclear up until their sale into the private
industry'. He said: 'While AEA may have given this its absolute best and
neutral approach, it doesn't smell like that to the average man.'

Other experts who made submissions said they felt their evidence was
underplayed and misrepresented; that there were concerns that ministers
allowed only 12 weeks for the consultation; and that it was done before
other important studies on nuclear waste and safety regulation were
published.

There was praise, however, for AEA's publication of a summary table of the
most-supported low-carbon technologies, which showed that nuclear power
was the only one of the 15 to get more opposition than support. The widest
support was for wind power, solar and bio-fuels. Of the 18 responses
included in the summary which commented on nuclear, 10 were opposed to the
nuclear option and eight were in favour. The 10 opposing submissions were
all from individuals, the eight favourable responses were all from
organisation.

'There's a great gulf between what's in the review and what's in the
submissions,' said Bob Everett, lecturer in renewable energy at the Open
University. 'When I think of all the people who sent in submissions, I
think they'll be very, very angry, but not surprised.'

AEA Technology defended its professionalism, saying it wins work around
the world because it has wide expertise beyond the nuclear industry and by
'being respected for the quality and independence of our work'. The
company's clients include the European Commission, the World Bank and the
UN.

'AEA Environment is a large independent environmental and energy
consultancy,' it said. 'As well as covering the full breadth of
environmental issues, we are acknowledged to be experts in energy
efficiency, renewable energy, and clean coal technology. We are also
acknowledged to have experience and skills in independently assessing the
results of consultations on these and other environmental issues.'

The DTI said AEA Technology was chosen to help with the review because of
its 'experience of this kind of work and in a broad range of sustainable
energy issues'. A spokesman also defended the resulting review. 'We
considered evidence received on energy policy in the round - both demand
and supply - and the outcomes are a balanced package of measures on energy
efficiency, on renewables, on cleaning up fossil fuels and on nuclear
energy,' he added.

Last month Stephen Hale, the former special advisor to the previous
Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, wrote in The Observer that the
energy review was a 'sham' and the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the
alternatives'.

Since the review, nuclear power has suffered a number of set-backs. The
Finnish government announced that construction of the first of a new
generation of nuclear power stations in Europe, seen as an important
forerunner for the UK, would be delayed by a year. During the recent
heatwave nuclear reactors in mainland Europe have had to be shut down, and
others allowed to release harmful hot water into rivers. The US-based
Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposition group also reported
uranium prices have risen 600 per cent in five years, threatening
nuclear's traditional operating cost advantage.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002 

"War is Peace"
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Molly Johnson 
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA  93451
Cell: 805 296-0524

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com