Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bayeux Tapestry Norman Invasion 1066
First French Conquest 1066; Second French Conquest was Nuclear

In 2008, Labour PM Gordon Brown sold British Nuclear reactors to a foreign state – France! EDF is 84.4% French State owned!
British Energy was the UK’s largest electricity generation company by volume, before being taken over by Électricité de France (EDF) [Electricity of France]… British Energy operated eight former UK state-owned nuclear power stations and one coal fired power station. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Energy

Rhetoric vs reality
Posted by bex — 24 September 2008 at 10:44am
Yesterday: “I want British companies and British workers to seize the opportunity and lead the world in the transformation to a low carbon economy and I believe that we can create in modern green manufacturing and service one million new jobs” – Gordon Brown.

Today: British Energy is sold to French nuclear company EDF for £12.5 billion, exporting thousands of potential UK jobs to France, dealing a hammer blow to our chances of meeting our legally binding Renewables Obligation.http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/reality-vs-rhetoric-2965-20080924

Keeping it in the nuclear family
Blogpost by Justin – 16 October, 2008 at 18:05
When you’re a nuclear energy company it pays to have friends in high places. When you’re EDF, however, and you’re negotiating to buy UK nuclear company British Energy, you can do better than that.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is a huge fan of nuclear – he’s desperate for a UK nuclear ‘renaissance’. When EDF was successful in buying British Energy, he said: ‘This deal is good value for the taxpayer and a significant step towards the construction of a new generation of nuclear stations.’

That being the case, we’d love to know what he and his younger brother Andrew talk about whenever they get together.
Andrew Brown is head of media relations at EDF Energy.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/keeping-it-in-the-nuclear-family/blog/10791/

The current DECC Secretary, Lib Dem MP, Ed Davey’s brother Henry works for Herbert Smith Freehills law firm:
EDF Energy’s official and unofficial influence within government is extremely worrying… ‘Davey’s brother advised EDF on trading contracts relating to the company’s acquisition of British Energy in 2008. Herbert Smith has since worked with EDF to gain development consent for the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset…Ed Davey made a dramatic U-turn by declaring he is now pro-nuclear. The connection with his brother’s professionals interests is simply too close for comfort.http://stopnuclearpoweruk.net/content/new-energy-secretarys-appointment-underlines-unhealthy-relationship-between-government-and (Herbert Smith Freehills also represents Russian State owned Rosatom.)

Rhetoric vs reality (Continued)
Posted by bex — 24 September 2008 at 10:44am
Killing off renewables

We’ve often explained how significant growth in nuclear power kills off renewables; if cash and political will favour nuclear power, renewables get suffocated. And, as even EdF admits, the opposite is also true: significant growth in renewables kills off the case for nuclear – perhaps explaining why nuclear industry stooge John Hutton has been so reluctant to embrace renewables.

Costing the consumer

This deal will also end up costing the British consumer. EdF isn’t just paying £12.5 billion to buy British Energy; it will also need at least a further £5 billion to build a single reactor (although the costs are spiralling), not forgetting the cost of upgrading the electricity grid and dealing with nuclear waste. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that these enormous costs will eventually be passed on to customers in the form of higher energy bills.

Failing to tackle climate change

For what? A low carbon energy sector apparently. But a replacement nuclear programme can only reduce our carbon emissions by four per cent sometime after 2025. A recent report shows that, if the government met its own renewables and efficiency targets, it could reduce the UK’s CO2 emissions by up to 37 per cent by 2020 – without new nuclear or new coal plants. And all of this before the first new rector would be operational.

Tying us into dependance on foreign fuels

Neither will nuclear power reduce our dependance on oil and gas. Nuclear can only produce electricity, and eighty-six per cent of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. On the other hand, the renewables and efficiency scenarios we’ve laid out do lead to a reduction in gas use – of up to 42 per cent. In another report, we’ve shown how industrial combined heat and power plants could halve our gas imports and provide power for two-thirds of UK homes.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/reality-vs-rhetoric-2965-20080924

Secrets and lies
Posted by nathan — 18 January 2008 at 11:33am
It really doesn’t come as any surprise to learn that, whilst Gordon Brown’s government were claiming to be having an honest and open conversation about the future of nuclear power with the British public, secret deals had already been done in Whitehall which would pave the way for a new fleet of reactors.

At the weekend, the Independent on Sunday revealed that, whilst the first nuclear consultation (which was slammed by the High Court for being flawed, misleading and inadequate) was underway, Brown’s energy adviser Geoffrey Norris held at least nine secret meetings at Number 10 with the bosses of nuclear energy companies such as EDF, Eon and BNFL.

In a desperate attempt to keep this under wraps, the government at first tried to block details of the meetings from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. But it turns out that no official records were kept of the discussions with the companies, which stand to profit from Brown’s announcement last week, and no one seems to recall the details of what was discussed.

A little suspect, I’m sure you’ll agree – and rather worrying that certain advisers can operate outside the rules of government accountability. But then again, to embrace nuclear power as a solution to climate change and energy security is outside the realms of reality and common sense.

When you consider that government support for new nuclear power stations is based on a sham consultation and on mantra rather than fact, it stands to reason that the heady mix of government incompetence and big nuclear business should collude to contrive what could be the worst energy policy decision for a generation.http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/back-door-politics-20080118 (Links to documents at the original greenpeace link.)

(Emphasis our own.)

Where did feisty UK Greenpeace go? They are needed!