Climate Clinic Latest News
Huhne energy announcement - Greenpeace response
27 Jul '10
Reacting to Energy Secretary Chris Huhne’s first annual energy statement to the Commons, Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
“The new study shows that a high-tech low-carbon future is within our grasp but it won’t be achieved without massive public and private investment and a detailed plan. Right now it’s not clear that ministers are committed to unlocking that investment, and without it any plan is worthless. If we keep kicking our heels instead of building a clean energy economy we’ll miss our climate change targets and lose the economic advantage that would result from being a world-leader in green technology.
“Whatever pathway we choose to a low-carbon future, it’s absolutely clear from the government’s analysis that we have to go beyond oil in our transport system. This means more investment in engine efficiency and electric vehicles. The government must not cancel the planned consumer incentive for new electric cars designed to bring forward hundreds of millions in private investment.”
ENDS
Greenpeace – 0207 865 8255
Notes:
What was announced today?
• Mr Huhne has opened a consultation on the options for the UK over the next 40 years to ensure security of energy supply, reduce costs and meet 80% target.
• Published 6 illustrative examples as part of the ‘2050 Pathways’ project and launched an interactive online ‘2050 calculator’ to open a public debate on the options.
• The government will publish a full energy strategy after the comprehensive spending review in October 2010.
Nuclear - the facts
• The staggering hidden costs of nuclear power, whether from dealing with radioactive waste or from the delays that have bedevilled almost every reactor ever built, mean any claim that it’s the cheapest source of low-carbon energy is without substance.
• The government has massively understated the costs of dealing with nuclear waste from new reactors to make it look like a better investment. They did this by estimating that these costs would be “comparatively small” compared to the price of building a reactor.
• Yet new modelling for Greenpeace by an independent nuclear expert shows that the costs of dealing with new nuclear waste will be at least £1.5bn per reactor, a staggering 44% higher than the government’s assumptions.
• What’s more, despite saying there will be no subsidy the government plans for funding these costs will leave the taxpayer footing a bill of around £1bn for every reactor built.
• Don’t forget the catalogue of delays and spiralling costs that have doubled the price of the Olkiluoto-3 reactor in Finland and are causing similar problems at Flamanville-3 in France. UK regulators admit we can expect similar problems here.
• The UK already has a bill of £75bn for dealing with existing nuclear waste. This recently spiralled by another £4bn when the government realised it hadn’t accurately estimated the costs of waste management.
Renewables - the facts
• According to figures from the UN Environment Programme global investments in renewables during 2009 exceeded investment in non-renewable energy sources for the second year in succession.
• According to the International Energy Agency-backed Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century project, the amount of new energy capacity coming from renewable sources in Europe and the US also topped that coming from fossil fuels and nuclear for the second year.
• Renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA last year.
• Globally, nearly 80GW of renewable power capacity was added in 2009.
• In China, renewable energy sources are now expanding faster than coal plants: of the 178GW of power generation capacity under construction at the end of 2009, more than 96GW were renewables and 80GW were thermal power.
For further information, please reply to Ben Stewart
← Back to news