Greenpeace victory on nuclear power

Apparently Greenpeace has won its High Court bid to make the government rethink its programme to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. The judge ruled that the consultation process before making the decision last year had been "seriously flawed" and "procedurally unfair".

Greenpeace complained that there had been a failure to present clear proposals and information on key issues, such as disposal of radioactive waste and building costs.

The Trade and Industry Secretary contested the judicial review but Mr Justice Sullivan took a different view. He said "something has gone clearly and radically wrong" He went on to say that "the consultation document contained no actual proposals and the information given to consultees had been wholly insufficient for them to make an intelligent response" and that"the information given on waste had been not merely inadequate but also misleading".

Of course the DTI say (correctly) that this is about the process of consultation and not about the principle of Nuclear Power. The point they omit to make is that of course with full, correct and accurate information the consultation paper might have led both the consultees and the DTI itself to a different conclusion!

Is this what we are going to do with our nuclear waste?

According to the BBC scientists have backed the government's plan to store the UK's nuclear waste deep underground.

David Miliband told the House of Commons back in October that we were to bury our nuclear waste so I guess it is handy that this report supports the governments policy.

The policy announcement last year was not unexpected and was in line with the Committee on Radioactive Waste Managements report a summary of which can be found here. In summary the report states that :

• Geological disposal is the preferred long term solution
• Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play in the mean time
• A new approach to implementation is required which should be based on the willingness of local communities to participate.

Professor Charles Curtis, president of The Geological Society of London, presenting the latest report, said "After a long period without waste policy, the UK finally has a way to go forward. We concur the safest and most secure way to go is deep geological depositories, and we see no insurmountable scientific and technological barriers to this."

Apparently between one-third and two-thirds of the UK have a suitable geological make-up for deep nuclear waste burial. It is also likely that the approval, design and construction of such a facility will take up to 40 years to achieve!

There are as I see it a number of problems with the way forward as proposed.

Firstly, the government has to identify and acquire a suitable site. The search for such a site in itself will be mired in political difficulty. The government will not want to look at any sites near to any marginal Labour seats for a start. The uproar amongst the local community eventually chosen to site this repository is likely to be significant.

Secondly, the scientists may be convinced about the viability of such a storage facility but I guess the great British public may take some further convincing. I sat on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Local Liaison Committee for a number of years and this issue was discussed at length on several occasions. My only conclusion was that this stuff was best off contained in specially constructed stores above ground where the state and condition of the drums could be easily monitored and where any faulty packages could easily be retrieved and repackaged.

Thirdly, even if one agreed with the long term disposal option the government needs to address the second point made by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management namely that Interim storage arrangements will have a vital role to play. If it is going to take up to 40 years to implement the long term strategy then they had better put a bit more thought and effort into the medium term strategy.

Of course the problem might not be quite so big if we were not proposing to replace Trident with yet another Nuclear weapons System about which I propose to write more soon.

Mixed messages on energy

Blair wants nuclear although his statements appear to prejudge the governments own energy review due out in July. Elliott Morley the former environment minister wants renewables and I tend to agree with him. Meanwhile perhaps the best news of all is that Yvette Cooper minister of state at the new Department for Communities and Local Government is to announce plans to revamp designs for a new town of 10,000 near Cambridge and according to this article in the Guardian "among the ministerial demands for the buildings are good insulation, solar energy devices such as roof-mounted collectors for hot water, large windows on south-facing walls, water recycling, water-efficient fittings, and porous paving to keep rainwater in the ground rather than running into drains". Good news indeed but I just wish the government would stop taking baby steps and start to make some serious inroads into this issue by making these sorts of things compulsory in all new build.