SAFE ENERGY E-JOURNAL No.31

September 2005

The content of this e-journal was for the most part originally prepared for Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland) and is reproduced, as adapted, with their permission but without liability for its contents.

Contents

1 New Nuclear Monitor

2 Sellafield News

3 Dounreay

4 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

5 Nuclear Waste

6 Terrorism

7 BNFL

8 British Energy

Appendix: Recent Opinion Polls

 

1.0 New Nuclear Monitor

1.1 In May a paper by Joan MacNaughton, the Director-General of energy policy at the Department of Trade and Industry, was leaked to several newspapers. Produced for incoming ministers, it warned that key policy targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and boost renewable energy are likely to fail, and that decisions on new nuclear power stations must be taken urgently. It advised that 'it is generally easier to push ahead on controversial issues early in a new parliament'.  [1]

1.2 The paper does, however, list a number of issue that need to be addressed, including how new stations might be financed; what kind of government support might be necessary for new build to take place; how far new build would be consistent with a market framework for energy; how public acceptance can be secured; and how far along the way towards solving the nuclear waste problem would you need to be?

1.3 In June contradictory predictions appeared in Press following the Prime Minister's monthly news conference. The front page of The Scotsman declared "Blair signals support for new nuclear power stations". This was “his clearest signal yet” that he will authorise new reactors, and he cast doubt on whether renewables were viable alternatives. Mr Blair also tacitly criticised the Scottish Executive's plan to block any new nuclear power station in Scotland, saying it was not "responsible" to rule out new reactors.  [2]

1.3 In June contradictory predictions appeared in Press following the Prime Minister's monthly news conference. The front page of The Scotsman declared "Blair signals support for new nuclear power stations". This was “his clearest signal yet” that he will authorise new reactors, and he cast doubt on whether renewables were viable alternatives. Mr Blair also tacitly criticised the Scottish Executive's plan to block any new nuclear power station in Scotland, saying it was not "responsible" to rule out new reactors. [3]

1.5 The Independent also reported that Alan Johnson, the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has stressed the need to deliver the commitments in the 2003 Energy White Paper, and drawn attention to problems with waste and public confidence over safety, and that it would be a diversion if we moved away from a focus on renewables and energy efficiency. Johnson also hinted that the THORP leak (see below) has had an impact on the debate within government. [4]

1.6 More recently, several Press reports have suggested that the nuclear question will rise up the political agenda again after the summer recess. Firstly the climate change review, which examines what needs to be done to meet the Government's targets, will be finalised. This could then pave the way for an independent study of whether more nuclear power stations should be built. [5]

1.7 The Sunday Times reported that a so-called “independent” inquiry may be used to justify a decision that has already been made in principle to build more nuclear generators. Lord Birt, the prime minister’s personal adviser in No 10, is understood to be pushing for Sir Andrew Turnbull, the outgoing cabinet secretary, to chair a review, which could lead to the construction of six new nuclear reactors.  [6]

1.8 The Independent on Sunday reported on 31st July that Blair would approve plans to hold a major review of Britain's energy needs and pave the way for the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors, when he chairs a cross-departmental Committee on Energy and the Environment, which will meet for the first time in August. The committee, set up after the general election, is expected to form a special commission to oversee the review. The meeting had been scheduled for July but was delayed by the terrorist bombings in London. The review, which could lead to a new energy white paper, could be launched in October or November to coincide with the publication of the Government's climate-change report.

1.9 Professor Dennis Anderson of Imperial College says nuclear advocates have underestimated nuclear costs for 50 years. According to a study by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the costs of new nuclear plant, including those of decommissioning and waste disposal, would be 10 per cent less than the best available gas and coal-fired plant. Yet the industry hasn’t gone ahead on its own and built new reactors because it knows that costs are likely to be appreciably higher than such estimates - up to 100 per cent higher according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists. [7]

1.10 The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated by almost a factor of three, according to the New Economics Foundation. As a response to global warming, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And, in an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution. In the current debate some argue that nuclear power could happily co-exist with renewables. But there are limited resources available and there is a real danger, according to most government sources, that nuclear will continue to ‘crowd out’, more cost effective smaller scale renewable alternatives. [8]

[1] Secret Papers Reveal New Nuclear Building Plan by Oliver Morgan, Observer 8th May 2005
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1479279,00.html

[2] Blair poised to say yes to more nuclear power, by James Kirkup, Scotsman 28th June 2005
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=710032005

[3] The Independent, 28th June 2005

[4] Sellafield Leak Casts Doubt on Nuclear Expansion says Minister, Independent on Sunday 12th June 2005

[5] Vexed issue set to rise up political agenda as emissions target looms, by Christopher Adams, Financial Times, 12th August 2005.

[6] Blair’s man set to head nuclear power inquiry, by David Cracknell and Andrew Porter, Sunday Times, 10th July 2005.

[7] Letter to The Times 11th August 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1729815,00.html

[8] Mirage and Oasis, New Economics Foundation, 29th June 2005
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/news_mirageandoasis.aspx

2.0 Sellafield News

2.1 At the end of April news began to emerge about a fractured pipe which had forced the THORP reprocessing plant to close. The leak was not a danger to the public but is likely to be a financial disaster for the taxpayer. 83 cubic metres of highly radioactive liquid, containing around 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium in a nitric acid solution, had leaked onto the floor of an enclosed part of the plant.

2.2 A British Nuclear Group (BNG) Board of Investigation report revealed the highly radioactive liquor leaked into THORP’s Feed Clarification Cell over a 9-month period between July 2004 and April 2005. The report infers that, from July 2004, the leak rate increased gradually until mid-January this year when the pipe in question suffered a complete fracture.

2.3 Senior sources at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) now believe that keeping the THORP plant shut may be the most economical option, [9] although this is a decision that would have to be taken by the Government. However, BNG has come up with four options for re-starting the plant - involving either diverting liquid to avoid the fractured pipe or mending the pipe.

2.4 BNG’s Board of Investigation (BoI) report revealed a catalogue of human and design errors which contributed to the leak. BNG blamed the ‘new plant’ culture which pervades THORP operatives from managers down who believed “material losses on this scale could not conceivably be due to a leak; there had to be an error in the paperwork”. Despite previous accidents in the plant, the ‘new plant’ culture has continued and lessons not been learned. “Given the history of such events so far, it seems likely that there will remain a significant chance of further plant failures occurring in the future even with the comprehensive implementation of the recommendations of this report”. [10]

2.5 The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) is also compiling a report and it is still possible that criminal charges might be brought. Investigations are focusing on how long the leak was undetected and the reliability of monitoring systems. NII has already served two improvement notices on Sellafield over the leak, having found evidence of "significant deficiencies" at THORP during its initial investigations. NII says it wanted to make sure Thorp managers took "prompt action to prevent similar events recurring." This does not preclude further enforcement action later when investigations are complete.

2.6 THORP is likely to remain closed for many months, even if a decision is taken to attempt to re-open the plant. The plant is already two years behind schedule in carrying out its contracted reprocessing work. This is likely to leave a huge hole in the NDA’s budget. The NDA's plan for 2005-6 shows that, out of a total budget of £2.2 billion, it expected to receive £1.08bn from commercial operations, of which £635.1 million would come from reprocessing and transporting nuclear material around the world. A large proportion of this will be from THORP's activities. It is estimated that the leak will cost the NDA at least £300m in lost revenue this year alone. [11]

2.7 With almost all foreign reprocessing contracts now completed, it would be uneconomic to re-open THORP simply to continue reprocessing spent fuel from British Energy’s AGR power stations. This would unnecessarily produce large volumes of plutonium and uranium for which British Energy has repeatedly said it has no use. It is not yet clear how much it would cost to repair THORP, but several NGOs have called upon Chief Executive Dr Ian Roxburgh to cut the NDA’s losses and close the THORP plant permanently.

2.8 The Sellafield MoX Plant (SMP) has successfully delivered its first batch of MOX fuel to Switzerland, where it has been successfully loaded into a reactor. BNFL says that more MoX fuel is now being made for the same Swiss reactor and should be delivered in 2006.Technical difficulties at SMP since the first plutonium test material was introduced almost 42 months ago prevented the £500m plant from producing a proper commercial MoX assembly until March this year. This forced BNFL to sub-contract five of its European customers’ MoX fabrication orders to Cogema and Belgonucleaire during the past few years. The sub-contractors used their own plutonium to fulfill these orders and BNFL has said it will have to transport plutonium oxide from Sellafield to Europe to repay them. [12]

2.9 Despite making a successful delivery the future of SMP still hangs in the balance. The NDA says it is monitoring closely how it performs and will discuss its future with the government in terms of managing the plutonium stockpile if it does not achieve targets. [13]

2.10 Sellafield has been issued with enforcement notice on radioactive discharges by the Environment Agency. The notice forces Sellafield to improve the way it discharges low level radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. Inspectors from the Environment Agency issued the enforcement notice after finding that the operator could do much better to reduce radiation doses. [14]

2.11 A Swedish Company is planning to send research reactor spent fuel to Sellafield for reprocessing. The small amount of spent fuel would be reprocessed at the old Magnox reprocessing plant.

[9] Close Nuclear Leak Plant for good says Sellafield, by Oliver Morgan, The Observer 15th May 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1483998,00.html

[10] Bellona (Norwegian NGO) 29th May 2005: http://www.bellona.org/en/energy/nuclear/sellafield/38200.html
See also British Nuclear Group Board on Inquiry report:-
http://www.britishnucleargroup.com/pdf/2765_1.pdf
Sellafield staff ignored 100 warnings about leak, by Paul Brown, The Guardian 16th July 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1529659,00.html?gusrc=rss

[11] Sellafield Radioactive Leak to cost £300m, by Paul Brown, The Guardian 13th June 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1505005,00.html?gusrc=rss

[12] Nuclear Fuel (Vol. 30 No.12) 6th June 2005.

[13] MOX future to be considered, Whitehaven News 18th August 2005
http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=273562

[14] Sellafield ordered to clean up its act, Carlisle News and Star, 7th June 2005 http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=251143

3.0 Dounreay

3.1 Plans by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) to transport low-level nuclear waste from Dounreay to Drigg near Sellafield have been rejected by Scotland's Environment Minister Ross Finnie. Mr Finnie said: "This decision reflects a widespread view that the best practicable environmental option for this low level waste is that it should be dealt with at Dounreay, where it is produced."

3.2 UKAEA said it will now build additional storage space at Dounreay for solid low-level radioactive waste pending the availability of a new disposal facility at the site. Extensive consultation carried out by UKAEA recently identified the construction of a new disposal facility at Dounreay as the Best Practicable Environmental Option for managing low-level waste from the site clean-up, but such a facility is unlikely to be available until 2011 at the earliest, and current storage space is due to reach capacity in 2006. Transporting low-level waste to Drigg was intended as an interim solution, but UKAEA is now seeking agreement from regulators and the NDA to extend the existing store.

3.3 UKAEA had said there was no alternative to exporting low level waste - estimated at a lorry-load per week - to Drigg. On 7th April 2005, it said, "…should the minister decide not to give the go-ahead, he would effectively bring decommissioning work at the site to a standstill ... interim storage wasn't a possibility. We would start to bottle neck the site with low level waste and decommissioning work would essentially stop." Colin Punler, Dounreay Communications Manager, told a meeting in Edinburgh in May that this apparent contradiction was because UKAEA had understood that storage was unacceptable to the NII, but now understand that it will be acceptable after all.

3.4 Dounreay has suffered more than 250 safety failures in the past six years, according to documents released by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa). Many of the leaks, spills and equipment breakdowns have never been reported before, and raise concerns that the UKAEA has failed to overcome the poor safety practices of the past. [15] Since 1999 there have been an average of 40 problems per year, including radioactive contamination of whelks, winkles, rabbits, concrete, soil, water, air and beaches; faulty radiation monitoring equipment; violations of safety conditions, leaking waste tanks; lost radioactive waste and power cuts.

[15] Revealed: The Safety Failures at Dounreay, by Rob Edwards, Sunday Herald 15th May 2005: http://www.sundayherald.com/49762

4.0 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

4.1 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which began operation on 1st April 2005 has been unable to take over full ownership of Sellafield’s liabilities from British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) because of an ongoing European Commission (EC) investigation into the state aid implications of such a move. If the EC decides that state aid rules aren’t being broken, the Sellafield asset and liability transfer will be swiftly completed. [16]

4.2 British Nuclear Group (BNG) – BNFL’s decommissioning subsidiary - is planning to cut 500 jobs at Sellafield in an attempt to save on overheads as it prepares to face competition for the contract to manage the complex in the next few years. The move has raised safety fears, particularly as 100 senior managers have already been axed. [17]

4.3 The cost of clearing up the UK's nuclear waste and dismantling its reactors will cost at least £8bn more than originally estimated according to the NDA’s draft strategy. The cost had previously been estimated at £48bn but has now risen to £56bn. If the decision is taken to reclassify plutonium as waste, rather than an asset, another £10bn could be added to the cost.

4.4 The NDA also says the UK's ageing Magnox reactor sites, including Hunterston A, and Chapelcross, could be cleared within 25 years, about 70 years ahead of current plans. The NDA wants comments on its draft strategy by 11th November.

[16] Nuclear Fuel (Vol. 30, No.8) 11th April 2005

[17] Safety Fears over BNFL move to cut 500 Sellafield jobs, by Terry Macalister, The Guardian 3rd June 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1498097,00.html

5.0 Nuclear Waste

5.1 The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has announced its finalized short-list of options following a second round of public consultation. [18] The options are:
• Long-term interim storage
• Deep geological disposal
• Phased deep geological disposal
• Near-surface disposal (for limited volumes).

5.2 No decision about building new nuclear power stations in Britain should be taken until a solution to the problem of nuclear waste has been outlined. Any early move to go ahead with new atomic power plants would compromise public consultations going on at the moment to address the waste issue. CoRWM chairman, Professor Gordon MacKerron, has written to the Government saying, if there were such a decision, it would complicate the CoRWM process, and some stakeholders might not take part. [19]

5.3 On 10th June 2005, after fifteen years of secrecy, Nirex released the names of all 537 locations once identified as potential sites for disposing of the UK's dangerous radioactive waste. The list was forced into the public domain as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. (See http://www.nirex.co.uk/index/iold_list.htm ). Nirex says the sites "will not form the starting point of any new site selection exercise", but admits that "the geology in the UK has not changed, so sites that were considered suitable previously on geological grounds could be considered suitable in a future site selection process". So, depending on the waste management options recommended by CoRWM in July 2006, any of these 537 sites could again be threatened by nuclear waste dumping proposals at some point in the future.

5.4 Nirex also released the highly sensitive shortlist of 12 sites, which was eventually reduced down to two sites – Dounreay and Sellafield. The shortlist was:
(1) By Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex;
(2) Ministry of Defence land on Potton Island, 8 km from Southend on Sea. Essex;
(3) Under the North Sea, accessed from the port at Redcar, Yorkshire;
(4) Under the sea between the Inner Hebrides and Northern Ireland, accessed from the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire;
(5) Killingholme, South Humberside;
(6) Ministry of Defence training area, Stanford, Norfolk;
(7) By Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness;
(8) Near the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria;
(9) A second site near Sellafield;
(10) Altnabreac in Caithness 18 km south of Dounreay;
(11) Fuday, small, uninhabited island north of Barra in the Western Isles;
(12) Sandray, small, uninhabited island south of Barra in the Western Isles

5.5 BNFL has been told by the Environment Agency to come up with an action plan to prevent nuclear waste escaping from the low-level waste dump at Drigg, near Sellafield. Options include: stopping further disposal of certain types of waste; removing some waste; building a new, thicker cap for the waste trenches; and managing the site for twice as long as the 150 years proposed. Drigg was planned to continue operating until 2050, but may now have to close earlier. A public consultation on what the Environment Agency is proposing runs until 7th September.

5.6 The Agency has reviewed BNFL’s Post Closure Safety Assessment and concludes that BNFL has failed to make an adequate case for continued disposals of LLW because:
(i) Estimates of future doses significantly exceed current regulatory targets;
(ii) The dump is likely to be destroyed by coastal erosion in 500 to 5,000 years; and
(iii) BNFL does not demonstrate that impacts will be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

The documentation produced for the consultation says that continued disposal of long-lived low-level waste may be creating an undue burden for future generations.

5.7 The NDA Draft Strategy says: “It may be locally more acceptable, and operationally more efficient to close the facility at Drigg and to focus on providing a new LLW facility at, or close to Sellafield … the NDA’s preferred approach would be to build on the principle established at Dounreay, that where possible, sites should host their own LLW facilities”.

[18] CoRWM Press Release 11th August 2005
http://www.corwm.org/content-729

[19] Waste warning sounded in clamour for nuclear stations, by Paul Brown, The Guardian 14th May 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1483683,00.html

6.0 Terrorism

6.1 Information about nuclear power stations, including safety issues and potential hazards, would be concealed from the public at planning inquiries under guidelines drawn up by Office of Civil Nuclear Security because of terrorism fears. Objectors would be prevented from seeing detailed plans for nuclear plants. Instead, the attorney general would select an "appointed representative" to argue the case on their behalf, for which the objectors would have to pay. [20]

6.2 The impact of a terrorist attack at Sellafield on Ireland is unquantifiable, according to report by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland produced after a visit to the facility. The dangers posed by Sellafield could threaten Ireland for the next 150 years.

6.3 A study by the US National Academy of Sciences exploring the risks of terrorist attack on spent fuel storage ponds at America's nuclear power stations, completed last summer, has finally been released in an unclassified version. The report concluded that an attack which drained the water from the ponds could cause a fire which would release large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. In the UK spent fuel is stored in ponds at the Sizewell B reactor site and, on current plans, would probably be stored in ponds at any new reactors built. [21]

6.4 Millions of pounds are being spent stepping up Sellafield’s security. New measures include a special nuclear material detection system for checking vehicles along with workers and visitors to the site, and an automatic vehicle number plate recognition system. BNG says the new measures were not the result of the recent bombings but an on-going review of security.

6.5 The latest OCNS annual report bemoans the “absence of legal sanction in the event of an unauthorised entry into licensed nuclear sites”. Roger Brunt, the UK Director of Civil Nuclear Security has demanded new legislation to outlaw unauthorised entry to nuclear sites. It is a deficiency of serious concern which requires urgent action, he said. His call is enthusiastically backed by British Energy. But it is rejected by anti-nuclear campaigners as a ploy to suppress peaceful protest. [22]

6.6 Hunterston and Torness are to have their own dedicated teams of armed police to protect them from attack by terrorists.

[20] Terror fears draw veil over nuclear plants, by Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian 6th May 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1477455,00.html

[21] Spent Fuel in Us Reactor Pools Vulnerable to Attack, Environment News Service 8th April 2005
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-08-10.asp

[22] Nuclear industry demands new laws to ban protest break-ins, by Rob Edwards, Sunday Herald 31st July 2005
http://www.sundayherald.com/51010

7.0 BNFL

7.1 The Government appears to have lost confidence in BNFL, and seems to be planning to break up and sell off the company, as an alternative to the privatisation of the business as a whole. First to go up for sale is BNFL’s nuclear power station construction business, Westinghouse, worth around $1billion. Oddly enough some conservative politicians have been arguing against the sale of these state-owned assets at a time when nuclear may be making a comeback.

7.2 BNFL could also sell its decommissioning arm, British Nuclear Group (BNG). At the moment, Keith Parker, its chief executive, says BNFL is looking for partners for BNG, and is working with a US company, Fluor, on consultancy work for clean-up projects. But Amec and Fluor have teamed up to approach the Government about buying BNG. [23]

7.3 The Government is also said to be planning to seize BNFL's £570m stake in the European uranium company, Urenco. The Shareholder Executive, the Government agency that looks after shares in state companies, is drawing up plans to take over the 33% stake in Urenco.

7.4 The sale of Westinghouse has already run into serious difficulty though, because the US House of Representatives has voted to disallow a $5bn (£2.83bn) loan from the federally-owned Export-Import Bank which Westinghouse was relying on to fund its bid to build four reactors in China. Westinghouse may now have to pull out from bidding for this highly lucrative contract, thus jeopardising the sale of the Company.

7.5 The Business newspaper said on 14th August that the NDA’s draft strategy drove another nail into BNFL’s coffin. BNG has already made itself unpopular with the NDA. It was slammed for three of its main responsibilities - cleaning up Magnox power stations, getting rid of "legacy" waste at Sellafield, and running THORP and SMP. Its proposal to leave Magnox sites dormant for 100 years was rejected: it would "require future generations to finish the process". Instead, the NDA wants the sites clear within 25 years of shutdown. BNG was also slammed for its failure to provide an adequate plan for Sellafield. Fifty years after nuclear waste was dumped in the notorious B30 facility, BNG still has no plans to remove it. The NDA demands "comprehensive, substantiated, fully developed and costed plans for decommissioning Sellafield" by September. In contrast, BNG's government-owned competitor UKAEA received nothing but praise for its plans to clear up the nuclear legacy at Dounreay. BNFL's sole chance of survival is to retain decommissioning contracts. But it may need to join a consortium to even pre-qualify as a bidder, given the NDA's condition of a "successful change management experience and record of innovation".

[23] Amec and Fluor team up to bid for rump of BNFL, by Oliver Morgan, The Observer 26th June 2005
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1514498,00.html

8.0

8.1 A subsidy of £184m has been paid by the government to help prop up the newly rescued British Energy, which had to be bailed out from bankruptcy two years ago. The money has been used to pay for long standing reprocessing contracts with BNFL. [24]

8.2 Upon release of British Energy’s Annual results, the Chairman said the Company is focussed on securing life extensions for its existing nuclear power stations, if this can be done safely. Whilst the Company says it welcomes discussions about new nuclear stations, its focus is on improving the reliability and performance of existing stations and “we must not let ourselves be distracted by these wider issues”. Chief Executive Bill Coley, insisted he was not even lobbying the government to make a decision on the highly controversial issue. Dungeness, in Kent, is the first of BE’s stations due to be shut down in 2008, but Coley is hoping to extend its life by about five to ten years. The Company should find out how long it will be allowed to extend Dungeness’s life in the autumn.

8.3 An accident at Torness nuclear power station in 2002, described at the time by British Energy as ‘‘vibration problems’’, was far more serious and highlighted major flaws in safety procedures, according the NII. NII criticised managers at Torness for staff cutbacks, ‘‘ignorance’’, ‘‘communication problems’’ and failing to give safety a high priority. Some of the information the company provided to investigators was said to be “inaccurate or inconsistent”. The accident – one of the worst in the history of Torness – led to one reactor being shut down for more than six months, and cost British Energy at least £25 million. It took British Energy nearly three weeks to produce a safety assessment of the accident and to launch a formal inquiry. This was “too slow”, the report concludes, “and doesn’t demonstrate that a high priority is given to nuclear safety”. [25]

[24] Taxpayers’ £184m aid to private energy firm, by Paul Brown, The Guardian 18th July 2005
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1530680,00.html

[25] Major Safety Flaws Uncovered at Torness Plant, by Rob Edwards, Sunday Herald 26th June 2005
http://www.sundayherald.com/50446

 

Appendix – Recent Opinion Polls

(1) 73% of Scots support building more wind farms and only 17% the nuclear option.
According to a BBC poll.

FoE Scotland Press Release 11th April 2005
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/press/pr20050405.html

BBC 11th April 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/scotland/4430659.stm

 

(2) More than half of UK public opposed to new nuclear stations

JUST over half of people were opposed to the Government considering nuclear power as a future energy source, according to a poll of 1,000 people for BBC 2’s Newsnight. Only 39% were in favour.

BBC 16th May 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4552051.stm

 

(3) 59% say it would be irresponsible to build more nuclear power stations while problems remain in disposing of nuclear waste.

The public is sceptical about the case for building new nuclear power stations. Hostility to nuclear power is matched by a belief that renewable sources of energy such as wind farms could fill the gap in energy needs in the next 20 years. A Populus survey also found that politicians are not trusted to tell the truth about nuclear safety. The poll found that 59 per cent of those questioned believe that it would be irresponsible to build more nuclear power stations while problems remain in disposing of nuclear waste. Half of respondents go so far as to say that they believe nuclear power to be unsafe.

The Times 8th August 2005
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1726141,00.html