A SOUTHAMPTON MP has disputed the Government’s claim that a new generation of nuclear power stations may be necessary to meet the UK’s energy needs. Alan Whitehead, Labour MP for Southampton Test, said: “We must challenge the myths that the lights will go out unless we agree to build new nuclear power stations, and that nuclear power is necessary to allow us to meet climate change goals.”
This is Hampshire 28th May 2007
IF we are not careful, pressure groups like Greenpeace will bankrupt Britain. It has been obvious for decades that we need nuclear power if we are to compete in the world. North Sea oil is running out and we are now net oil importers from an unstable Middle East. Coal is no longer the answer.
Yorkshire Post 28th May 2007
Various letters: Invest all that nuclear money in energy conservation and renewables and we could have immediate reductions in CO2 just in time. In 10 years we’ll see nuclear power as an expensive irrelevance.
Independent 28th May 2007
Tokyo shares firmed as rises for nuclear-related companies countered falls in some domestically focused stocks amid political worries. For example, Hitachi, the electronics conglomerate whose products include nuclear turbines, climbed 1 per cent to Y890.
FT 29th May 2007
The government’s timetable for decommissioning Britain’s ageing civil nuclear reactors has been pushed backwards with delays to the clean-up of two sites and the potential redundancy of 200 senior scientists and engineers as a result of cash constraints. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority says financial cuts will mean that the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors at Harwell in Oxfordshire and Winfrith in Dorset will face delays of up to five years.
Guardian 29th May 2007
THE SCOTTISH Green Party has expressed reservations about plans to ship nuclear waste from Rosyth to Sweden. Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited (RRDL) has applied to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for authorisation to dispose of radioactive material from its Rosyth Business Park site. Despite the disposal of nuclear waste carrying risks, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) Scotland and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have confirmed to SEPA they are satisfied with the plans.
Dundee Courier 29th May 2007
Beaches between Ravenglass and St Bees are to be monitored by British Nuclear Group after the Environment Agency placed a statutory notice on the company.
Carlisle News and Star 28th May 2007
THE two Koreas are set to hold a new round of high-level reconciliation talks this week, overshadowed by the North’s refusal to start dismantling its nuclear programme and the South’s decision to hold back food aid to its impoverished neighbour.
IC Wales 28th May 2007
With energy at the top of the political agenda and the Scottish Executive opposed to any new nuclear power stations, Mr Salmond believes a new generation of coal mines could help meet Scotland’s energy needs.
Scotsman 28th May 2007
“COAL is king,” says Alex Salmond, as he suggests that Scotland should shed its nuclear power plants in favour of new coal-fired ones. The First Minister is correct that, with new technology to remove emissions, coal has a healthy future. Yet Mr Salmond underestimates the practicalities of introducing clean coal, and he is certainly being optimistic if he thinks that sinking new deep mines in Scotland is economically viable.
Scotsman opinion 28th May 2007
WHAT is Scotland’s energy policy now? The SNP’s decision to scrap new nuclear has formalised Scottish Labour’s carefully scripted policy of nuclear reluctance. And though some Labour MSPs may want to overrule Alex Salmond’s planning veto, the Scottish public (and many Labour MSPs in private) have given the unambiguous anti-nuclear stance a cautious thumbs-up. The renewable energy industry doesn’t need random, instant change. It needs a workable strategy. And that’s what the Scottish public need the SNP to deliver.
Scotsman 28th May 2007
For the past two decades Scotland has had an excess of electrical generation capacity and has been annually exporting a great deal of electricity to England. Strangely, no-one ever asks why this is the case. Just why did Scotland emerge with such a massive excess of generating capacity in the early 1980s? Who sanctioned this state of affairs and was it done for the benefit of Scotland? Ironically, we are back to the issue of nuclear power stations. When Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister, the miners were perceived to have too much power. To dish them, it was decided, inter alia, that we should have a couple more nuclear power stations; and where better to put one than Scotland, where planning permission existed for six reactors at Torness. At that time, Scotland did not need such a station. We were not short of generating capacity and another nuclear power station with a capacity of 1200mW would give us an extraordinary excess. Indeed, the select committee report in 1981 could find no good reason why this power station was being built. Torness was never justified in capacity or economic terms. Indeed, it caused substantial economic damage to Scotland by keeping electricity prices higher than they need have been, since, during the construction phase, the interest on the capital borrowed was charged to the ongoing price of electricity in the SSEB area.
Herald letters 28th May 2007
The longest-running battle since the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation is being taken all the way to the House of Lords, as the NHS in Scotland continues to resist releasing local statistics on childhood leukaemia. The decision by the Common Services Agency of the NHS in the wake of defeat in the Court of Session to continue spending public money to fight the issue all the way to the Lords has outraged Green MSPs, who first asked for the local breakdown of figures in Dumfries and Galloway in 2004.
Herald 28th May 2007
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana confirmed on Tuesday that he would meet Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani this week for the latest round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Reuters 29th May 2007
Rio Tinto has been forced into an embarrassing retreat on plans to exploit one of the world’s biggest undeveloped uranium deposits after angering the land’s traditional owners. The third-biggest mining company lit the fuse while promoting the expansion potential of its uranium business, telling analysts in London last week that opportunities could result in annual group production almost quadrupling to 20,000 tonnes by 2016. A significant proportion of that growth is reliant on the group securing approval from the Mirarr Gundjeihmi Aboriginal people to develop the Jabiluka deposit in Australia’s Northern Territory, which is worth more than US$40 billion (£20.2 billion) at current prices. The Mirarr responded with a blast of condemnation, saying that they were “extremely distressed” by the interpretation of their relations with ERA, the Rio Tinto subsidiary that owns Jabiluka and the nearby Ranger uranium mine. “Such comments are injurious to that relationship and immediately throw the prospect of future engagement into jeopardy,” they said in a statement.
Times 29th May 2007