Afternoon:
10°c
A huge expansion of nuclear power was announced today as Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband argued it was crucial in the fight against global warming.
A new generation of power plants will be in use by the end of the decade after Mr Miliband approved most of the 11 short-listed sites. Most are expected to be next to existing plants such as Sizewell, Hinkley Point and Sellafield and planning will be fast-tracked by a new quango, the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which the Tories described as undemocratic.
Today's plans will increase the amount of Britain's nuclear electricity from 15 per cent to 25 per cent by 2025. Mr Miliband believes it is crucial for the UK to meet its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
"Saying no is not a good energy policy. In fact, we've got to say yes to all of the key technologies: nuclear, renewable, clean coal," he said.
Ministers hope the planning reforms will avoid long battles, encouraging companies such as E.ON, RWE npower and EDF to open the first new power station as early as 2017.
Green groups warned that people would not be able to influence decisions. Friends of the Earth's Andy Atkins added: "Building new nuclear plants would divert precious resources from developing safe renewable power."
Reader views (10)
I don't pretend to understand all the very educated responses given already to this article. But I think I'm right in saying that electricity is cheaper in France because they have nuclear power stations. If this is fact, and we want to have cheap energy here - or at least not have to pay any more for it than we do at the moment, because for some of us it's expensive - then we should continue down this road because I can't see how the environmentally-minded think that we can increase our energy supplies sufficiently by wind power etc. for all our energy needs in the future.
- Judith, KIng's Lynn, Norfolk, UK, 09/11/2009 20:39
Report abuse
Dannyp - the UK will see the vast majority of the jobs from construction. A nuclear power station is far too big and heavy to be pre-built elsewhere - the concrete has to be poured on site, the pressure vessel and pipework welded on-site, etc. There's also a larger quantity of work doing safety inspection and certification than with any other sort of power station (for obvious and necessary reasons) and again that has to be on-site.
If the UK still has any heavy electrical engineering industry, it will get its chance to tender for the non-nuclear parts (steam turbines, generators, transformers etc.)
- Nigel, London, 09/11/2009 15:36
Report abuse
On this basis then, most of the East Coast of England from the Wash down to Kent and part of the English Channel, will be glowing in the dark!
- Chris Richards, Chelmsford Essex, 09/11/2009 15:19
Report abuse
they have had 12 years and only now when they know they are finished do they come up with proposals.
ps gordon bropwn sold westinghouse recently for peanuts
- Terry Sullivan, morden england, 09/11/2009 14:55
Report abuse
Apart from building or renewing 11 nuclear power plants, the devil is in the detail here: the government is introducing a planning quango that has the power to fast track any planning application that the government desires, regardless of local or national opposition.
Expect to see this applied to more than just power stations very soon.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 09/11/2009 13:43
Report abuse
"There is enough natural gas in the short, medium and long term to supply the UK." - Nick Grealy, Kingston
Yes if we want to be at the mercy of the volatile politics of the former Eastern Europe. We need to be as energy self-sufficient as possible and the green solution is nuclear.
- Amanda, London, 09/11/2009 13:28
Report abuse
This is a long time coming. In the 80s and 90s when Greenpeace and Co. lobbied to have Nuclear phased out, it returned the UK to excessive reliance on fossil fuels which has exacerbated the the CO2 problem. If every new coal power station built in the UK since 1986 was instead nuclear, the country would be much further along on it's goal toward the 80% reduction in CO2. I can only hope that a more rational approach to nuclear can be sustained. I also hope that some of the reactor types chosen are more advanced than the standard LWR types and there is more development in reprocessing and Gen IV types.
I suggest all of the "NO MORE NUCLEAR" types get a thorough education in the subject. It will certainly help prevent a major energy shortfall in the country which would inevitably cause the use of much more dangerous fuels to be used, i.e. coal in older plants, etc.
And for those who believe gas is a better choice, realize that north sea gas (and oil) has been in decline for several years now and that the only long term option for NG is import at market prices, which are only going to go up, significantly increasing the cost of electricity generation by that type.
The only viable solutions I can see are combinations of nuclear, wind, minimally solar, and somewhat by demand reduction. Don't let anyone fool you by saying any other single solution will work.
- Jason, London, 09/11/2009 13:13
Report abuse
And will the UK see any jobs in design and construction? Probably not...
- Dannyp, Egham, 09/11/2009 11:21
Report abuse
There is enough natural gas in the short, medium and long term to supply the UK. We can start using that today, not in a few years time and not in 15. We won't pass the waste issue on to future generation and it won't cost us a fortune in energy costs either.
Natural gas is here today, deliverable, proven and cost effective. Why nuclear? Why carbon capture?
- Nick Grealy, Kingston, 09/11/2009 11:06
Report abuse
I do not think 25% will be enough. With fossil fuels either running out or leaving too large a carbon footprint, and wind, wave and solar power unlikely to provide more than a minimum of power requiremnts, a more realistic figure to aim for would be 50%.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands, 09/11/2009 11:06
Report abuse
