Memorandum by Greenpeace
A STEP INTO THE FUTURE, OR ONE FOOT IN THE
PAST? THE CHOICE BETWEEN RENEWABLE ENERGY OR NUCLEAR POWER
Greenpeace welcomes the fact that the Government
is reviewing energy policy. Current energy trends are unsustainable:
greenhouse gas emissions and radioactive waste are leaving enormous
burdens for future generations to deal with. The fifty-year time-scale
identified by the Government makes possible a visionary and bold
approach which no previous energy review in the UK has achieved.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
(RCEP) has said that the UK should reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. This sounds an ambitious target,
but is in fact the bare minimum the UK needs to do to contribute
to the global fight against climate change. The RCEP proposals
is predicted on the need to stabilise atmospheric concentrations
at 550 ppmv carbon dioxide equivalent, which would eventually
produce a temperature increase of at least 3 degrees C. Greenpeace
has published research suggesting the need to stabilise CO2 concentrations
at 350 ppmv in order to limit global average temperature increases
to one degree C.
The EU has proposed that temperature increases should not be allowed
to exceed two degrees C and concluded that CO2 concentrations
should be kept below 550 ppmv. It is clear from both the wording
of the decision and from the science that this is an extreme upper
The new energy policy must therefore be framed
to ensure that concentrations can be kept well below 550 ppmv.
This will almost certainly require CO2 cuts of greater than 60
per cent by 2050. Anything else would be morally indefensible.
Runaway climate change will condemn millions of people to the
effects of floods, drought, increased storm levels and the spread
of tropical disease. Though no part of the world will be immune,
the most severe effects will be felt in developing countries like
Bangladesh, which lack the resources to protect their citizens.
Arguments from the fossil fuel industry and major energy users
who are opposing radical change need to be seen in this context.
In the time available it has not been possible
for Greenpeace to draw up a response to all the questions raised
by the PIU. This submission covers four key issues: the enormous
scope for energy productivity gains; the need for ambition in
developing renewable energy; the unacceptability of nuclear power
and particularly any new nuclear subsidies; and the unreliability
of carbon sequestration as a way to combat climate change.
2. ENERGY PRODUCTIVITY
It makes both economic and environmental sense
to make the task of phasing out nuclear power and fossil fuels
easierand to reduce the UK's need to import energyby
reducing the total amount of energy we need. The UK's system is
dominated by wasteful and polluting technologies, and continues
to be poor at providing the energy services that people want.
The man fossil fuel technologies in our economy, like the Combined
Cycle Gas Turbine and the Internal Combustion Engine, have conversion
efficiencies of 50 per cent or less. Much of the electricity power
supplied in the UK is lost from inefficient appliances and leaky
An Environmental Agency discussion paper has
recently suggested that it would be possible to reduce the UK's
primary energy input by 50 per cent by 2050. Although
predictions for fifty years ahead are inevitably highly uncertain,
Greenpeace believes that this scale of reduction is plausible,
given the wasteful way in which energy is currently used and the
range of existing and developing approaches and technologies which
could be used to boost energy productivity. We suggest that the
Government should use a 50 per cent reduction in primary energy
use as an aspirational target for UK energy policy to 2050.
A wide range of policies will be needed to increase
energy efficiency in all sectors. Below we suggest a number:
There should be an expanded obligation
on suppliers to deliver energy savings, based on the existing
Standards of Performance but much more ambitious in scope.
Landlords, including commercial landlords,
local authorities and social landlords, should be obliged to make
their own stock energy efficient.
The Government should move quickly
to upgrade the Building Regulations to bring them into line with
international best practice; there is no reason why construction
companies in the UK should be allowed to build to lower standards
than those in Denmark and Sweden.
Mandatory minimum efficiency standards
for products are needed, including standards on standby power.
To encourage increased energy productivity
in the industrial and commercial sectors, the Climate Change Levy
should be increased gradually year on year, and this escalator
be pre-announced so that companies can build in the unit of energy
into their investment decisions.
Though energy efficiency can dramatically reduce
our need for energy, it obviously cannot eliminate it. In order
to cut greenhouse gas emissions by the necessary scale, we need
not only to increase energy productivity, but also to phase out
the use of fossil fuels and rely instead on renewable energy sources.
a. Targets for renewable output
There is no shortage of energy to be had from
renewable sourcesthey could theoretically supply our existing
energy needs many times over. Various
studies have estimated the scale of the renewable energy resource
available to the UK. One of the most comprehensiveand in
our view fairly conservativeis the ETSU analysis published
as supporting evidence to the DTI's 1998 Renewables Review. This
study has been used by the PIU to derive an estimate of the scale
of the renewable resource. 
The PIU note confirms that the technical potential
for renewables is enormous: for offshore wind alone the potential
is equal to 10 times current electricity use, and wave power could
provide almost double current demand.
The "practicable potential" in 2025,
taking account of cost, planning constraints, build rate and network
constraints, is 228 TWh/y, equivalent to two thirds of existing
electricity demand. Most of this is from offshore wind (100 TWh/y)
and wave power (50 TWh/y). The prediction for solar in this scenario
is very modest, since it appears to assume no change in the regulatory
Despite this clear indication of the scale of
the practicable resource, the PIU note goes on to say that the
PIU is considering setting a target for 2020 of either 20 per
cent or 30 per cent. Greenpeace welcomes the proposal to set a
2020 target. It is essential to ensure that the value of credits
under the Renewables Obligation holds up. The proposed PIU target
of 30 per cent is too low and is less than half the practicable
and economic potential.
ETSU assessment of practicable resource in 2025
ETSU assessment of economic resource in 2025
(at 4 p/kWh or less) 224 TWh/y
PIU proposed targets: 30 per cent by 2020 c
20 per cent by 2020 c 66 TWh/y
We are assuming that if a percentage target
is set it will refer to a percentage of a baseline, not a percentage
of whatever electricity demand is in 2020. otherwise it is a moving
target, and the more successful the UK is at increasing energy
productivity, the less ambitious the renewables target becomes.
For this reason it would be simpler to express future targets
in absolute terms, TWh/y or GW, rather than percentages.
The nature of the threat to the climate, the
need to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and the
need to replace nuclear power with carbon-free alternatives, make
it essential to develop renewable energy as fast as possible in
Since the ETSU assessment indicates that it
is practicable and economic to get over 200 TWh/y from renewable
sources by 2025, the Government should set a 2020 target of 175
TWh/y, of 50 per cent of current annual electricity demand.
This target is ambitious but achievable given
sufficient political will. It is well within the scope of engineering
capabilities. To get 100 TWh/y from offshore wind turbines, for
example, would require just under 11,000 turbines (assuming each
turbine is 3 MW and operates at an average 35 per cent capacity).
The total area of sea needed for these turbines (at 600 metre
spacing) would be equivalent to a box roughly 40 miles by 40 miles.
Germany, which has an offshore wind resource
one quarter the size of the UK
has already announced its intention to generate 75-80 TWh from
wind farms at sea, as part of its plan to close all 19 of its
nuclear power stations. A
detailed description of the status and opportunities for offshore
wind in Northern Europe can be found in a recent report for Greenpeace
by the German Wind Energy Institute (DEWI)see Appendix
What is needed from the UK Government is a step
change in its renewables ambitions. The current offshore wind
programme, welcome though it is, will provide a maximum of 4.5
TWh/y. The UK's tiny wave power programme hardly registers at
all in output terms despite the huge potential. The 2010 target
for all renewables equates to approximately 35 TWh/y.
Aiming for a target of over 175 TWh/y requires,
as much as anything, a different mindset within Government and
policy making circles.
b. Can the grid cope with this level of renewable
The PIU note reports that "most analysts
state that the current UK grid system could accommodate around
20 per cent of electricity from intermittent sources such as wind
and wave energy, before technical and managerial changes are required".
Currently electricity distributors have a largely
passive role in the demand and supply of electricity in their
region. If they had incentives to manage their networks more actively,
and if the benefits of demand management and local supply were
recognised, it would be possible to get to much higher penetration
of micro generation and renewable energy in the system without
new storage systems. Whilst technologies such as wind power are
intermittent in their supply new forecasting models allow for
a high degree of predictability. The firm nature of biomass power
allows dynamic management of the network to allow it to act as
"balancing" power source with source such as wind, wave
and solar power.
This means that there need be no immediate concern
about grid capacity. As the UK begins to exceed 50 per cent reliance
on renewable sources for electricity generation, there will of
course be a need to store renewable power for periods of high
demand. All the indications at present are that hydrogen will
be the key to solving these issues. Renewable energy can be used
to electrolyse hydrogen from water, or hydrogen can be "produced"
directly from biomass. Hydrogen can then be used in a fuel cell
to produce power when and where it is needed. Other energy storage
systems will also be developed. We cannot and do not need to predict
what exact storage/carrier technologies will be available fifty
or even twenty-five years from now. What we can say with confidence
is that, given the right regulatory environment, the rate of technological
advance and the level of private sector investment will be such
that these or other solutions to the problem of intermittence
will be available to a renewable energy economy.
c. Solar power
UK policy towards solar power has in the past
been a victim of short termism. Successive governments have concluded
that solar power is not close to market competitiveness and therefore
not worth supporting. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The PIU's fifty year timeframe offers a chance to break the impasse
on solar photovoltaics.
Analysis for ETSU suggests that the technical
potential for building-integrated PV panels is 266 TWh/y. However,
solar's 2025 contribution in the ETSU calculation is limited by
assumptions about cost and rate of penetration into new buildings.
The Government needs to address both these constraints.
A report by a group of industry experts chaired
by BP Solar concluded in 1996 that what was needed to bring PV
prices down to levels comparable with fossil fuel generation was
one major PV factory (of 500MW capacity) which would achieve economies
of scale. Since 1996 there has been some progress on PV, but nothing
approaching the economies of scale that would enable the market
to take off. There are three things the government could do to
The Government should announce a
vastly more ambitious programme to install solar panels in the
UK, with a target of 100,000 roofs.
To encourage individuals and companies
to invest in PV, all supply companies should be required to offer
net metering deals.
The Government should also ensure
good penetration of PV into new buildings by amending the building
regulations to require that new buildings and refurbishments are
able to generate a proportion of their own electricity. This could
be through the use of solar photovoltaic panels, small wind turbines,
micro CHP, or fuel cells. This would represent a challenge to
British architects to use their ingenuity to help solve energy
and environmental problems.
d. The Industrial policy case for UK renewables
As well as the obvious environmental benefits,
there are very strong industrial and social policy reasons to
invest heavily in renewables. A report by Border Wind suggests
that development of the UK's offshore wind resource to supply
10 per cent of total electricity demand, would create over 36,000
The UK has a long and proud history of maritime
engineering, from centuries of shipbuilding to offshore oil and
gas engineering. But the decline in activity and investment in
the North Sea over recent years means that facilities and skills
are being lost. Marine renewable energy sources require the same
engineering skills that the UK possesses.
There are also major export opportunities. Wind
power around the world is already a $2.5 billion industry, which
every year for the past five years has grown by 40 per cent, a
growth rate set to continue. But unless it moves fast the UK will
miss out. Denmark has captured the largest share of the world
onshore wind market, and is now pushing offshore with new wind
and wave technology.
Other renewables will help provide jobs in areas
where they are badly needed. Decentralised biomass generation
will provide employment in rural communities as well as a new
source of income for farmers. Wave power offers strong potential
for the Scottish Highlands and Islands.
e. Diversity and security of supply
The use of the term "renewables" is
misleading when considering diversity of supply. The different
forms of renewable powersolar, wind, wave, biomass, hydro,
tidal and so onshould be listed separately, just as different
fossil fuels are. A 100 per cent renewable energy system would
involve a wide range of different technologies, safeguarding against
freak weather conditions which might make any particular one source
difficult to use at particular times.
Given the scale of the UK renewable resource,
developing these technologies will also enable the UK to become
self-sufficient in energy terms, and eventually to become a major
exporter of energy (possibly in the form of hydrogen) as well
as an exporter of the technologies for harnessing renewable power.
f. Policies to promote renewable energy
Targets are only as good as the policies that
support them. The Renewables Obligation should increase year by
year after 2010. Vulnerable customers should be protected from
the impacts of the Obligations through programmes to tackle fuel
However, given the environmental and industrial
policy importance of renewable energy, it would be wrong to load
all the cost of transition onto consumers. The Government needs
also to accept its responsibility to invest significantly to speed
up the transformation to a renewable energy system.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech
to Chatham House in March, the money allocated so far is no more
than an "downpayment". The Treasury must use the next
spending review to invest ambitiously in renewable energy systems.
Greenpeace, along with Friends of the Earth, WWF, RSPB, CPRE,
the Wildlife Trusts and the Green Alliance, challenged all political
parties before the last election to pledge at least £100
million a year in support of offshore wind.
Government support is also needed to ensure
that the grid is extended and where necessary strengthened and
upgraded to cope with different patterns of generation. It is
essential for the public sector to pay for grid extension to create
a level playing field. The existing electricity network was largely
built at public expense whilst the industry was in the public
sector. Building power stations on land on or near existing sites
does not incur significant new cabling costs; this is in effect
a subsidy arising from past public investment. New technologies,
particularly marine ones, face cabling costs which can make them
seem "uneconomic" when compared to the cost of fossil
fuel generation. This is a real barrier to the rapid growth of
a large offshore wind and wave industry in the UK. The Government
should therefore subsidise the building of a new offshore cabling
The Government also needs to ensure that the
overall market conditions are favourable to renewables. The New
Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) are geared towards large-scale,
mainly fossil fuelled generation; they penalise small generators
and intermittent generation, while not reflecting the value of
embedded generation offered by renewable installations.
Since NETA's introduction, wind exports to the
grid have fallen by 13 per cent and other renewables by 7 per
cent. Renewables prices have fallen by around 26 per cent. The
problems will not be rectified by Ofgem tinkering. Fundamental
reform is necessary to avoid long term damage to renewables generation,
and the Government must recognise that renewable development will
be inhibited by the market conditions being imposed by Ofgem.
NETA must be restructured to ensure that it recognises the benefits
of embedded generation.
4. NUCLEAR POWER
It has been widely reported that the Government
sees a revival of nuclear power as part of the answer to climate
change. This would be economically irrational: both energy efficiency
and renewable energy generation provide more cost-effective ways
of reducing carbon emissions. However, this is not the main reason
why Greenpeace opposes nuclear power. Nuclear generation inevitably
involves routine and accidental release of radioactivity into
the environment, and the generation of radioactive waste. This
is true even of the most modern reactor design. Radioactivity
is a "no threshold pollutant"according to the
International Commission on Radiological Protection there is no
level for exposure below which it can be said that there will
no adverse effects on human health.
The effects of radioactivity on human health
and the environment are poorly understood, being based on models
and data derived from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There
are statistically-significant increases in childhood cancer rates
around some nuclear facilities. It is known that radiation causes
cancers and other illnesses, and despite the lack of conclusive
direct casual evidence, the Government should adopt a precautionary
approach and stop the radioactive discharges.
The UK, in common with all other countries with
a nuclear power industry, has no solution to the problem of nuclear
waste. The industry's preferred option is so-called "deep
disposal" in a specially constructed underground dump. Deep
disposal would inevitably result in radioactivity leaking from
the site and returning to the surface. This "solution"
therefore amounts to dumping the waste out of site and out of
mind, but in the knowledge that it will return as a liability
for future generations.
There is in fact no solution to the problem
of radioactivity waste. It will remain dangerous for generations
to come, so creating it is clearly incompatible with any notion
of sustainable development. The least-bad option is to store it
on site, where it can be monitored and managed. It is irresponsible
to produce nuclear waste that cannot be safely dealt with, regardless
of the quantity. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
stated this clearly 25 years ago:
"there should be no commitment to a large
programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated
beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe
containment of long-lived highly radioactive waste for the indefinite
Since then, no progress have been made and the
RCEP reiterated its demand in its report last year:
"New nuclear power stations should not be
built until the problem of managing nuclear waste has been solved
to the satisfaction both of the scientific community and the general
It is a tragedy that the RCEP's advice was not
heeded 25 years ago, and that the UK now has a legacy of nuclear
waste which will need to be stored and monitored for tens of thousands
of years. Constructing new nuclear facilities would compound this
folly. The construction of new nuclear facilities would inevitably
add to the decommissioning waste, even if less operational waste
is produced from new reactor designs.
It is worth pointing out that the lack of an
agreed plan for nuclear waste management undermine nuclear industry
claims that nuclear power is now economic. With open-ended liabilities
on waste the costs of nuclear power are impossible to quantify
a. Nuclear power and security of supply
Nuclear power's contribution to security of
supply is at best limited. As the stations age, they become increasingly
susceptible to unplanned, safety-related shutdownsas shown
recently by both the Wylfa and Chapelcross closures. Even the
newest station, Sizewell B, has recently closed down ahead of
its scheduled outrage because of damage caused by leaking boric
Given that nuclear stations are not able to
load follow, and that all nuclear output is used as baseload,
nuclear power cannot be used to balance the grid at times even
when the stations are operating normally. Nuclear power's overall
contribution to grid stability is therefore extremely limited.
b. Nuclear power and employment
Employment levels at closed nuclear installations
do not decline significantly in the short term, although the focus
of the work shifts from operational to waste management issues.
The industry's experience in nuclear waste management and decommissioning
will prove increasingly valuable in an international decommissioning
market worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
c. Why there must be no new subsidy to nuclear
This is an industry which has received billions
of pounds in subsidy world-wide over the past five decades. If
a fraction of this had been allocated to developing renewable
power, we would not now be faced with arguments about whether
wind, wave solar and biomass are economic.
In the UK, past capital construction costs amounting
to tens of billions of pounds have been largely written off by
the state, and future liabilities have been underwritten by the
Treasury. There is also a cap on commercial insurance payouts,
which indicates that the insurance industryexperts in risk
assessmentdo not accept the nuclear industry line that
a catastrophic accident cannot happen.
It is possible to quantify at least three of
the subsidies the UK nuclear industry has received in recent years:
Nuclear power received more of the
Governments R&D budget than any other source according to
the IEAin 1999 it stood at US $26 million
The UK Government has undertaken
liabilities for Magnox of at least £3.7 billionthis
figure is likely to rise
UK electricity consumers have paid
£2.6 billion to Magnox via the Fossil Fuel Levy
Despite this huge subsidy the nuclear industry
is lobbying hard for new support in the form of exemption from
the Climate Change Levy (CCL).
Despite its name the CCL is an energy tax, not
a carbon tax. The Government rejected the case for reflecting
the carbon content of fuel in the tax following its consultation
in 1999, a decision which Greenpeace supported. Only renewables
and `good quality' CHP are exempted from the tax. This is a sensible
approach: there is a broad consensus around the need to increase
their contribution to energy generation.
There are a number of large negative financial
and competitive impacts that nuclear exemption from the CCL could
It would impact on Government finances.
It could reduce receipts from the electricity sector by up to
28 per cent. To recoup this revenue Government would have either
to increase the Levy on other energy sources or increase national
insurance (which has been cut to make the CCL fiscally neutral).
It would disrupt competition between
generators. BNFL, British Energy & EdF would be able to charge
more for the electricity they generate. Moreover since they own
the only sites where new nuclear facilities could conceivably
be constructed, they are the only generators who could ever have
access to this subsidy. A basic analysis of wholesale prices suggests
that these companies could be in a position to increase their
cash-flow on electricity sales from UK nuclear supply by between
10-20 per cent.
This would almost certainly increase their return on existing
investment and might decrease the return on investment for gas
and coal competitors.
It could undermine industrial electricity
users focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Because
nuclear power currently contributes 28 per cent of electricity
generation its exemption would swamp the market for exempt electricity
and weaken the energy efficiency signal to industrial users of
The main reason for rejecting a nuclear exemption,
however, is not economic but environmental. It would give the
wholly unjustifiable impression that nuclear power is environmentally
benign, when in fact it is deeply destructive. Economists might
argue that in an ideal world it would be optimal to have a climate
change levy and a separate radioactive waste/emissions levy to
internalise the external costs of these impacts. In practice it
makes sense simply to continue to include nuclear power within
the scope of the CCL.
If the Government feels the need to respond to
the nuclear industry's lobbying on the CCL it should simply rename
the Levy and explain that its purpose is to discourage all environmentally-damaging
forms of energy.
Nuclear power has enjoyed unprecedented political
support for 50 years, but the industry has repeatedly failed to
deliver. The Government should seize this opportunity to recognise
that the promises being made now are equally empty. Nuclear power
is not an environmentally acceptable or economically viable option
for meeting the UK's climate change commitments.
The Government should reject any further subsidies
to the nuclear industry, make clear that there will be no new
nuclear power stations in the UK, and phase out existing stations
as soon as possible.
5. CARBON SEQUESTRATION/SINKS
Greenpeace does not support the concept of carbon
sequestration. It is unlikely that any engineering solutions can
guarantee that the carbon contained through geological sequestration
will not escape. Even if it were possible to establish the long
term monitoring (of the order of millenia) required, this would
not constitute control. It would not be possible to eliminate
the potential for a catastrophic release. Please see Appendix
II on deep disposal of carbon dioxide for more detail on the risks
associated with this approach.
Greenpeace is also opposed to the concept of
using carbon sinks in forests, plants and soils to "offset"
greenhouse gas emissions. There are large uncertainties in the
science of how carbon dioxide "sequestered" by the biosphere
behaves, how much of it is taken up by the biosphere, how it is
released back into the atmosphere, and how long it is held in
these sinks and therefore isolated from the climate system. The
Hadley Centre for Climate Change has predicted that, by 2050,
climate change will have caused forests globally to become a significant
net source of CO2 emissions.
The best way to ensure that carbon remains locked
up is to leave it unburnt in the form of a fossil fuel deposits.
Carbon sequestration is also likely to prove an expensive distraction
from the real tasks of increasing energy productivity and phasing
in non-polluting renewable energy sources.
The decisions taken by this Government in the
next three years will be central to determining the trajectory
that Britains energy economy takesthey will either point
the way to a renewable energy system that is more productive and
many times less damaging to the environment, or they will point
backwards to more of the sameone large polluting power
plant will be replaced by another large power plant, nuclear waste
will accumulate, energy demand will continue to rise, and renewable
energy technology will remain marginal in the UK economy.
Renewable energy and nuclear power are not compatibleboth
will require considerable financial and regulatory support and
both will compete for new customers.
In this report we have identified seven key
actions that the Government can take to ensure that the UK gets
on the path to a productive renewable energy economy:
1. Support the EU target of keeping global
average temperatures below 2 degree C as a minimum boundary for
long term climate policy.
2. Endorse the vision laid out by the Environment
Agency for achieving a 50 per cent reduction on final energy use
3. Set a target for meeting 175 TWh a year
(50 per cent of current electricity use) from renewable energy
4. Make it clear that new nuclear power
stations will not be permitted.
5. Continue to tax nuclear generation of
electricity under the Climate Change Levy.
6. Phase out existing nuclear power stations
as quickly as possible.
7. Reject underground, and ocean disposal
of carbon dioxide as a climate protection strategy.
Appendices (not printed)
I. DEWI (2000) North Sea Offshore Winda
Powerhouse for Europe: Technical Possibilities and Ecological
Considerations. Greenpeace International.
II. Johnson et al. (1999) Ocean Disposal/Sequestration
of Carbon Dioxide from fossil Fuel Production and Use: An Overview
of Rationale, Techniques and Implications, Greenpeace Research
10 September 2001
3 Hare, B et al (1997) Fossil fuels and climate protection-the
carbon logic:, Greenpeace International. Back
European Community 1996 Climate Change-Council Conclusions 8518/96. Back
Archard, D. (June 2001) A Sustainable Energy Vision for the UK-A
document to stimulate discussion about the composition of a future
low carbon sustainable energy system, The Environment Agency. Back
Greenpeace does not consider incineration of municipal solid
waste with energy recovery to be a renewable form of energy. This
is partly because of the substantial carbon dioxide emissions
which result, and partly because even the most modern incinerators
emit dangerous levels of heavy metals, dioxins and acid gases.
The Government should amend its definition of renewable energy
to exclude incineration. It should make electricity from incinerators
subject to the Climate Change Levy, and rescind all outstanding
contracts under NFFO for incinerators. Back
See for example Garrard Hassan and Partners' 1998 study Offshore
Wind Energy in the European Community, for the European Commission. Back
Table 1 in the PIU scooping note on "Renewable Energy". Back
Matthies, H.G. et al (1995) Study of Offshore Wind Energy in
the EC. Final Report of Joule contract JOUR-0072, Verlag Naturliche
Energien, Brekendorf, Germany. Back
Germany Substitutes Wind for Nuclear Power-ENS June 11, 2001. Back
This was first proposed by an alliance of seven environmental
groups in a challenge to all political parties in the run up to
the last election. Back
TXU do already offer net metering to UK solar pioneers on a voluntary
basis via their "Solarnet" offer. Back
Border Wind (1998) Offshore Wind energy-Building a New Industry
for Britain, Greenpeace UK. Back
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Sixth Report (1976),
Nuclear Power and the Environment. Back
RCEP (2000), Energy-the Changing Climate, p 151 Back
IEA (2000) Energy Policies of IEA countries, IEA Paris. Back
The Government's undertaking for Magnox liabilities is £3.7
billion in 1998 money values, rising at 4.5 per cent above the
rate of inflation and due to be paid between 2008 and 2116. Depending
on when payment falls due, this could add several hundred million
pounds to the overall figure. Back
This is based on FFL receipts apportioned to Magnox from 1990-1996. Back
Given that current wholesale price are approximately 2.4p inclusive
of the 0.43p levy nuclear generators currently get around 2p per
unit. Under CCL exemption they could charge 2.3p, still come in
cheaper than competitors, and pocket the extra 0.3p. Back