The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics. It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise. Availability of high-grade uranium ore is set t.... Read the full version of this news story, and others, here.

Group formed against new nuclear station at Bradwell Added: 15 May 2008 10:40

North Essex: protest group against new nuclear station
By Danyelle Garside
Comment
A GROUP has been launched to fight plans for a second nuclear power station in Bradwell-on-Sea.

The tiny village has been earmarked by the Government as one of several preferred sites for a new generation of power stations.

If given the go-ahead, the new site could sit alongside the existing station - which is being decommissioned - on land owned by British Energy.

Residents of West Mersea, which is situated on the banks of the River Blackwater opposite the proposed location, have set up Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (Banng).

A spokesman said the group will try to protect the people and environment of the River Blackwater estuary from the risks and dangers of radioactivity by stopping the further development of nuclear activity in the area.

Members will focus on raising public awareness, gathering information on the risks of a new station, and challenging plans for any more nuclear activity on the Bradwell site.

They will also demand the clean-up of the existing site and call for transparent decision making on the part of Government and the nuclear industry in which the community is involved.

Professor Andy Blowers, who was picked as chairman, said: "There is a determination among the supporters of Banng to oppose the development of a new nuclear station at Bradwell within two miles of Mersea Island.

"The reality is that it will become a long-term, high-level waste dump with all the risks that entails.

"There is a strong feeling that the views of local communities are being cynically ignored and that we are being kept in the dark."

Banng plans to recruit supporters, organise petitions and hold meetings around the Blackwater estuary.

(From Colchester Evening Gazette 14 May 2008)

Nuclear brainwashing for our children Added: 06 May 2008 08:36

A scheme is well underway to introduce nuclear power as a friendly option into the curriculum as the nuclear industry believes most teachers are anti-nuclear! To witness the depths of this activity, visit:
http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Main_Page Nuclear brainwashing for our children

Nuclear as terror target Added: 05 April 2008 14:11

Sometimes we are accused of being scaremongering or "political" in talking of the risk of terror. Our fears are realised below:

Attacks on nuclear power stations, oil and gas terminals, Canary Wharf and Heathrow’s control tower were being considered by leaders of the plot to blow up seven transatlantic airliners in mid-flight, a court was told yesterday.

Times 5th April 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3671825.ece
Nuclear as terror target

Response to Managing Radioactive Waste Safely Consultation Added: 24 October 2007 18:37

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Response to the MRWS Consultation

We are a group in North Essex that involves itself in sustainable energy matters, and, working in collaboration with the now defunct nuclear power station site, aims to achieve decommissioning with as little impact as possible upon the immediate environment. Our view on nuclear power generation is that it is unsustainable because of its long-term human and environmental impact.

Given the troubled history of the NIREX intervention in the eighties at Bradwell, people in North Essex have rather dusty views on nuclear waste matters. We felt very strongly that the group needed to represent these people by trying to tackle the thorny problem of what to do with the radioactive waste generated by stations such as the Magnox at Bradwell. Therefore we were happy to take part in the CoRWM stakeholder engagement plan.

In general we were pleased with the result of the CoRWM findings. It reflected our push for recognising the uncertainties that still exist regarding geological disposal. We pressed very hard for storage rather than disposal, because the latter is still uncertain in technology and in intergenerational equity. We insisted on the primacy of R&D, in particular with regard to interim storage, as for the next forty years at least, that will be all we will have. (And who knows what will happen beyond then?) Most importantly, the emphasis on storage and R&D would leave options open for people in forty years time to decide for themselves.

Therefore we were most disappointed to see the hijacking of the first CoRWM report by the Government. Within three days it was trumpeting geological disposal as the “solution”. Since then events have progressed quickly, with “volunteering community” schemes being researched, and NIREX becoming absorbed into the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

What seemed like an open and intelligent way forward has been scuppered. The person in the street has now fallen back on the “mistrust them all” argument.

Vox pop

Here are some of the comments I get on the street, on market stalls and at places like the local Coop:

· The Government is hurrying so they can say that there can be new nuclear power stations because there will be a place for the waste to go.
· People do not trust local politicians to do the job properly. What role would my local parish/town council have in saying whether we have a repository in our area?
· How will we know if our Council is interested? They are not going to tell us!
· What are the bribes going to be? Who will benefit from them?
· How come you can suddenly have these sites almost anywhere?
· We used to be told that the geology was unsuitable everywhere except the Grampians
· The geological experiment at Sellafield failed – how come they know all about it now?
· How do we know the radioactivity is not going to escape, in the short term or in the future?

These somewhat bellicose views reflect BRARE’s concerns too. Furthermore:

· The Government must pause and take stock, by re-visiting all the CoRWM Recommendations. It is not enough to cherry-pick.
· On reading these Recommendations, it is implicit that there is much work to be done on how to get to grips with the uncertainties and technical difficulties, and how to move forward with society at large. This will take time and should not be rushed.
· This includes CoRWM’s view that it is not responsible for any discourse or action on new build, and that it is dealing solely with legacy wastes. If the Government brings new build into the equation, the good groundwork already done by CoRWM will be lost, as many stakeholders and members of the public will be alienated. After all, we don’t know yet how to deal with legacy wastes. We should not therefore be creating more.
· Geological disposal should not be heralded as a “solution”. The regulatory bodies now accept that eventually there will be seepage into the environment. There has to be realistic discussion about this. Much talk is optimistic – nowhere has a functioning repository. The vagaries of geology, climate, type and volume of waste, mean there can be no blueprint.
· Regarding volunteer communities, how is such an entity to be defined? Given the hierarchy of local government decision-making, will the people nearest the repository have the greatest say, and most of the money? How truly representative of the population is local government? How is the person in the street going to have their say? There needs to be a site where all councils who have expressed interest can be listed.
· Has the terrorist threat to communities been explored in detail?
· It is understood that any minor geological problems can be ironed out by technology, and that technology can be adapted to a potential site. Has this research been published and peer reviewed? Have the scientific and regulatory goalposts been moved since the NIREX Rock Characterisation exploration at Sellafield?
· We feel there is confusion over the issue of retrievability in the CoRWM consultations. The public in general liked this issue, which suggests storage to be preferable, as there is a measure of control. The idea of phased disposal is surely an oxymoron. Nobody is likely to want to go to the trouble and expense of retrieving waste that has been stored for geological disposal. The lack of control that disposal implies weighs heavily with the public.

Val Mainwood,
Bradwell for Renewable Energy

www.brare.co.uk

BRARE's response to the Energy Review consultation Added: 13 April 2006 10:54

BRADWELL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
www.brare.co.uk


This NGO expresses dismay that it is submitting to yet another Energy Review, only a few years after a White Paper delivered a multi-directional approach unequivocally based on renewable energy forms and on energy conservation. In our view it is tragic that an artificially imposed window was left open on the possible inclusion of a nuclear option: this has meant that a full drive towards a coherent energy policy has been put on hold, due to the massive financial, environmental and political ramifications of keeping open the possibility of new nuclear build. The public perception of this has been that they see a government divided and lacking in dynamism. They have been expecting a much bigger lead, on high profile energy conservation campaigns and encouragement through grants of energy conservation and microgeneration. There has also been a knock-on effect for businesses in the renewable sector, with planning and investment made difficult by the government’s ambivalence.

It must be emphasised yet again that the issue of nuclear generation should not be powerfully equated with the reduction of CO2 emissions. Nuclear capacity accounts for one quarter of Britain’s electricity generation. Electricity generation as a whole accounts for one quarter of Britain’s CO2 emissions. If we believe the claim that nuclear power is carbon neutral, then at best it could contribute 6% to carbon free emissions, and just one tenth to the 60% reduction needed by the 2050 deadline.

Key Questions for the Review (Our Energy Challenge p7)

Q1 What more could the government do on the demand or supply side for energy to ensure that the UK’s long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions is met?

This group is concerned primarily with the promotion of renewable energy generation and of energy conservation. The Government needs to put support and money into the following areas:

· Large scale enterprises

It is disturbing to note that in Scotland a company has developed and exported
wave power technology to Portugal. Yet there are no such installations in the UK. Given the previous lack of government funds for this technology, this success is extraordinary. Funds must be made available so that such companies can be encouraged to establish such ventures here in the UK, an obvious choice for such a method.

Offshore wind farm projects are going well. Wind turbine manufacturers need to be encouraged to set up factories in the UK so that we can be self-sufficient in turbine manufacture, thus generating wealth and employment. The general public around the Essex coast supported the application of a wind farm at Gunfleet.


. Micro generation

It is our experience that the public are only too willing to be of help. Grants need to be forthcoming, and manufacturers encouraged, to promote solar panels, small wind turbines, even community wind turbines such as at Swaffham in Norfolk. Our group is campaigning for the establishment of wind turbines on the Dengie Peninsula, and is sending letters of support to Maldon District Council.
Two thirds of the energy used to generate electricity from coal-fired and nuclear power stations is lost even before it reaches our homes. By generating power in our homes and communities we can capture the waste heat for heating purposes and sell any surplus back to the grid. By installing local power generators and using conservation techniques, Woking Council has reduced carbon emissions by 77% in 15 years, and is virtually self-sufficient.

· Energy conservation

People in the street want to do all they can. On member of the public commented on the price of long-life light bulbs, and suggested that there should a subsidy, as the initial outlay is considerable. Local authorities need schemes with which they can develop a local lead, both for their populations and for new building requirements, such as the London Borough of Merton, with its 10% renewables requirement. Energy conservation is by far the most cost-effective option, saving money as well as reducing fuel consumption and emissions.


Q3 Re-examining the case for new build

This group has devoted much time in the last five years in discussing the outcome of decommissioning the magnox reactors (BNFL Stakeholder Dialogues) and discussing how to deal with the historic wastes the nuclear industry has left us (CoRWM consultations).
The cost of dealing with these wastes is soaring – at the last count it was £800 per man, woman and child.

This group objects strongly to any suggestion that decisions made on disposal of historic wastes means that there is a green light to add more waste. Any decision will not result in a “good” method – rather will be the least worst. It has been our duty to work on finding some way of clearing up the mess this generation has made. The awesome difficulties this work has revealed means that it would be invidious to add to it for future generations. We are anxious that, on page 6 of the Energy Review, there is a statement that, in the previous review, “there were also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved”. Again, we must emphasize, that the issue of nuclear waste can never be resolved, that it is there for hundreds of thousands of years, and just because we might find some method of dealing with the present wastes, as is vital, this is no solution, but a disgraceful legacy to hand to future generations. If these views are not taken seriously, it will be seen as a great breach of trust, and a mockery of consultation and democracy.

New build is portrayed as a quick fix, as if it will solve all our energy problems. Yet a new generation will take a decade to build, which is outside of the planning timeframe. Much public money will be needed (£4-9 bn is quoted). This is surely using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If that funding were put into renewables and conservation it would enable research, enterprise, and a full-blown strategy which would take account of all methods, from biomass to the funding of PV cells and local generation transmission structures.

A renewable energy economy is good for the UK economy. Everything can be home-grown. A Westinghouse reactor kit imported from the US cannot compare.

Conclusion

The United Kingdom is standing at a threshold – as its nuclear capacity declines, and its renewable capacity is increasing, it has an opportunity that few countries have.
It can take an exciting imaginative step forward, enriching the national economy as well as protecting the planet. There are business opportunities galore in the renewables sector for this country.

This group is concerned that if new nuclear build were to go ahead, then the public funds used to support this would leave little for deep research into a renewable economy. It must be made clear that you can’t have it both ways.

The Government is concerned to take a global role in reducing carbon emissions. It is equally keen to improve the lives of people in the developing world. Gordon Brown has recently announced significant funding for the education of children in the developing economies. Renewables expertise, especially in microgeneration, could mean that many a community could source its own power, lifting it out of poverty. The United Kingdom could lead the world in this idealistic, practical and commercial enterprise.

We urge the Government to have the courage of its convictions and to resist the siren calls of the nuclear industry. Nuclear is not good business sense, nor is it good environmental sense.

MP gives support to Friday's Bill Added: 16 March 2006 09:28

Thanks for getting in touch. I will not be in the House of Commons on Friday because I already have a full diary of commitments in my Colchester town constituency. I do support what the Bill seeks to achieve. Best wishes - from Bob Russell, MP for Colchester
-----Original Message-----

Earls Hall Wind Farm application Added: 08 February 2008 18:56

The online action supporter page for Earls Hall windfarm is now live on
the Friends of the Earth site. Please pass it around wherever you can.

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/earls_hall_windf
arm/index.html

People can email the planning department directly or print and send the
letter themselves. Earls Hall Wind Farm

Radioactive waste consultation Added: 02 October 2007 12:34

The Government is seeking views from members of the public. You have until November 10th. If you wish for help in this, contact BRARE - we will be glad to help, There will also be a group response. But the individual one has much more power! Go to: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-framework/ Your views on radwaste needed

Urgent - say yes to wind turbines Added: 29 August 2007 10:51

There has been widespread opposition to the siting of five wind turbines at Roger Lord's farm at St Osyth. BRARE has seen the site, and they are very spread out and hardly noticeable. Tendring councillors are in danger of throwing the plan out. If you live in the area could you please lobby the councillors. Wherever you live, could you please send this letter of support, and send it on to your friends:


My address (please print)
Derek Walker
Council Offices,
Thorpe Road,
Weeley,
Essex,
CO16 9AJ


Date

Dear Mr Walker,

I wish my support for the Earls Hall Wind Farm planning application (Planning Reference: 07/ 00433/ FUL ) to be officially placed on record.

My reasons for support are:

· The proposal will result in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions, which will help this country to meet its current Kyoto targets for reducing CO2 emissions, helping prevent global warming.

· The application is supporting Government Energy policy, as detailed in PPS22 and local plan policies.

· The electricity generated will be used locally and would help create a sustainable decentralised form of energy production with each area of the country producing its own electricity.

· Wind farms need a countryside location and Earls Hall is the right place to capture wind energy.

· The proposal will help maintain the viability of the involved farms, and the businesses that depend on farming.

· During construction employment will be created, boosting the local rural economy.

Additional Comments







Name (please print) Signature

Best Practical Environmental Option Study Added: 16 July 2007 10:54

See the Community News for details on the above study, and how to respond. (July 16) The site takes every comment from the public very seriously. BPEO study on managing fuel element debris at Bradwell

Sellafield body parts - your view Added: 11 July 2007 09:00

Go to the above heading on Latest News of 11 July. At the bottom of the article, give your opinion.

White Paper Questionnaire on nuclear Added: 23 May 2007 13:29

Go to Government News Network to access the White Paper

Two steps to take asap Added: 09 October 2006 11:45

Step 1: the DTI wants to short-circuit planning enquiries for new nuclear power stations. This will mean locals will have very little say. BEFORE 31 OCTOBER email the DTI at nuclearpolicyframework@dti.gsi.gov.uk

ASK for a full JOINT public inquiry into each application, giving due respect to the public concerns of hazard and environmental protection.

Step 2: Object to the conclusions of the Energy Review that nuclear is vital ( ignoring energy efficiency, Sustainable Development Commission report that states that nuclear is not necesssary, local government's strong views on better energy efficiency, that the Office of Civil Nuclear Security regards nuclear as a potential terrorist threat)

WRITE THIS TO YOUR MP OR ATTEND THE PARLIAMENTARY LOBBY ON NOV 28th (for more details email the website)

Calling all CPREssex members Added: 23 May 2006 09:22

The latest edition of the CPREssex magazine has come out against the Bradwell wind farm. If you are a member please write a letter expressing your views.

Your views on radioactive waste Added: 10 May 2006 13:13

Dear Sir or Madam,

This email is to inform you that we have opened the Opportunity to Comment on CoRWM's Draft Recommendations and we now invite your comments.

You will find our recommendations and the supporting documentation on our web site. If you do wish to comment, please visit http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-898 where you will find an on-line form and an email option for those who would prefer to email comments.

Please note that this Opportunity to Comment will close on May 26th 2006.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon MacKerron

Chair, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
Your views on radioactive wastewww.corwm.org.uk/content-898

Send to a friend and your MP Added: 08 May 2006 08:11

In case you missed the advert in the Independent, you might want to look at the animation on this website: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/howmanyyears


HOW MANY YEARS DOES IT TAKE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE TO BECOME SAFE?
............................

It takes over a million years for nuclear waste to become safe (a time span equivalent to the evolution of modern man). Yet one man is set to make a decision that will increase lethal waste levels threefold. Is this the sort of legacy Tony Blair wants to leave mankind? We think not.

To help put a stop to a new generation of nuclear power, please send an e-card to your friends asking them to tell their MP nukes are not the answer to climate change. The solution lies in a clean and safe energy future for Britain.


Send an animated e-card to your friends:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/howmanyyears

A clean and safe energy future:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/thesolution
How many yearswww.greenpeace.org.uk/howmanyyears

Calling all Greenham women Added: 07 May 2006 11:07

Trident

Letter from Rebecca Johnson: On October 1-3 this year, there will be a gathering at the Faslane nuclear submarine base near Glasgow for women who went to Greenham - and all who wish they had gone (and, of course, our sisters, mothers, daughters, nieces and granddaughters). We'll be celebrating Greenham's 25th anniversary by kicking off the year-long Faslane 365 blockade to draw attention to the illegality, insecurity and dangerous waste of resources inherent in nuclear weapons.

Guardian 5th May 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1769049,00.html

ANYONE INTERESTED, CONTACT US

Have your say in our response to the Government's Energy Review Added: 05 April 2006 14:25

BRARE is in the process of responding to the Energy Review. We would love to include some public responses in support of renewable energy and conservation. Just a small personal comment on how you feel, and how you feel it matters to our environment in Essex.
Use the Contact Us button. Please do so by 13 April.

Response from Camerone to Climate Change Bill Added: 17 March 2006 11:45

Dear Valerie,

Thank you for your email about the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill.

As you know, this has been introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the Labour Member of Parliament, Mark Lazarowicz. David Cameron and his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet have fully supported this Bill throughout its development. Peter Ainsworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a co-sponsor of the Bill. Greg Barker, our front bench spokesman on the environment, has been heavily involved in strengthening the provisions of the Bill in Committee stage.

We regard this Bill as a worthwhile step forward which would help to ratchet up environmental standards in buildings; improve energy efficiency; and enable residents and local authorities to make better use of renewable energy sources. It is closely aligned with the initiative we announced recently on decentralised energy, which our Quality of Life Policy Group is now considering at David Cameron's request.

In short, the Conservative Party is fully supportive of this Bill and we very much hope that it becomes law.

However, as you know, Private Member's Bills are not the subject of the usual Party Whip. It is entirely open to individual Members of Parliament to express their own personal views on such Bills, even if, as in this case, they differ with the policy of the party as a whole.

Although the actions of these two backbenchers may delay its passage, we remain hopeful that Mark Lazarowicz's Bill will become law in due course. We are committed to cross-party co-operation on climate change. This is not an issue which can be tackled in the life-span of a single Government. It must be approached on a genuine long-term basis.

As you may also know, all Private Member's Bills are vulnerable to falling foul of Parliamentary time constraints. Given that the Government has indicated that it supports the aims of this Bill, we very much hope that, in the event of the Bill not completing its passage, the Government would reintroduce its measures in Government time. Such a step would have the Conservative Party's full support.

Thank you once again for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Kate Marley
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

www.conservatives.com









Conservative support on Climate Bill

Dear Mr Cameron MP

As leader of the Conservative Party I'm writing to urge you and your party to support the 'Climate Change and Sustainable Energy' Bill proposed by Mark Lazarowicz MP. I am concerned that, last week, lengthy speeches by two Conservative MPs meant that the Bill failed to complete its progress in the House of Commons.

I am very concerned that this important legislation, designed to tackle climate change, reduce fuel poverty and boost microrenewables, has been put at risk by these two Conservative MPs.

The party under your leadership has been making all the right noises about the need to tackle climate change. Please show that your whole party is genuine in this concern, by acting to stop the delaying tactics.

Please give me your assurance that Conservative MPs will not 'talk out' this Bill, that it has your party's full support and that you will encourage your MPs to support it in the Commons this Friday (17 March).

I am particularly disappointed by the way some of your members have been behaving, as I have great respect for John Gummer's views. Have you a divided party already on environmental issues?



I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Valerie Mainwood

Support Bradwell Wind Farm Application Added: 17 March 2006 11:39

Here is a template for a letter of support which goes to Maldon District Council. Letters should be sent by 9 April. Please let us know when you have done this:


Head of Development Control Maldon District Council Princes Road Maldon Essex CM9 5DL FAO: Gavin Kingsnorth My address

Dear Sir

Re Bradwell Wind Farm, Essex. Application number - 06/00291/FUL
I write today in support of the above application. My reasons include:

· The only currently viable large scale alternatives to wind are fossil fuels and nuclear power, involve difficult environmental questions and uncertainties particularly in relation to waste and emissions, whereas wind farms produce clean electricity, safely.
· The local area has in the past suffered from severe flooding and it would be good for the community to show leadership in fighting climate change, which may make future flooding worse.
· This site will generate electricity for the average annual electricity needs of between 8,100 and 10,600 homes, that’s a third of all home in Maldon district.
· This application will offset UK CO2 emissions, slowing climate change.
· The visual impact of the turbines must be put in context with the widespread damage climate change could have in the area.
· The proposal will help the region to achieve the renewable energy targets set by the government to reduce climate change, which is one of the biggest challenges we as a society face today.
· The wind farm will be the first in Maldon and will be the start of the people of Maldon doing their bit in terms of renewable energy provision.
· Wind farms are part of the Council & Government’s renewable energy policy.
· The proposal will help maintain the viability of the farm business involved.
· Local employment could be created during construction, boosting the rural economy.

My personal message is:





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please approve this application.

Name
Sign

URGENT ACTION BY 17 MARCH Added: 14 March 2006 10:03

Due to lengthy speeches and amendments by two back-bench Tories, against their party's wishes, the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill did not complete its Report stage last Friday. However, the Bill does still have a chance of becoming law as it will return to the House this Friday 17th March.

Please phone your MP on 0207 219 3000 and email your MP asking him or her to support this bill in parliament on Friday.


Suggested email wording:

Dear

As you may be aware, due to lengthy speeches and amendments by two back-bench Tories the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill did not complete its Report stage last Friday. However, the Bill does still have a chance of becoming law as it will return to the House this Friday 17th March.

Your support for this bill is vital - please support the bill this Friday and ensure this bill becomes law.

The ’Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill’ requires Government to report annually on greenhouse gas emissions and the progress being made in reducing emissions. It requires targets to be set for the introduction of micro generation, both locally and nationally, electricity from micro generation to be sold efficiently, micro generators to have access to ’green energy’ certificates, and adds a ‘renewable heat obligation’ to the renewable power obligation already in existence.


Studies suggest that within 15 years the micro renewable generation could produce enough energy to exceed the alleged energy gap arising from the shut down of older coal and nuclear power stations, over that period. The potential of micro generation is vast and largely undisputed, however this can only be achieved with bold Government support - please support Marks bill.

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Tories considering abandoning nuclear Added: 13 February 2006 13:28

The Tories are in the midst of an Energy Review, and are inviting members of the public to give their opinions. Please go to -www.energyreview.co.uk

If the Tories go non-nuclear, think of the pressure on the Labour Party!