[Email to MEPs, mid April 2012]
Dear XXX,Despite one report to the contrary (bit.ly/HGErg1), it appears that there is substance in reports (bit.ly/ID84P1, bit.ly/HHt9FZ)
that four European countries have called on the EU to allow nuclear
power to get the same kinds of subsidies as solar and wind power -- on
the grounds that it is “an emissions-free technology”.For reasons given in the example letter, below, nuclear power should NOT get
subsidies of any kind. Far from allowing nuclear power to receive new
subsidies, the EU should be getting rid of existing subsidies for
nuclear power (bit.ly/wPVERU).Please write to the Director-General for Competition, Alexander Italianer (alexander.italianer@ec.europa.eu), Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger (guenther.oettinger@ec.europa.eu), and President José Manuel Barroso (jose-manuel.barroso@ec.europa.eu), asking them to do all in their power to ensure that nuclear plants will NOT
be eligible for any new subsidies, and to remove existing subsidies for
nuclear power. As I mentioned, there is an example letter below. Many thanks! Gerry Wolff -- Dr Gerry Wolff PhD CEng Coordinator, Energy Fair gerrywolff65@gmail.com, +44 (0) 1248 712962, +44 (0) 7746 290775, Skype: gerry.wolff, www.energyfair.org.uk . ----------------------------------- EXAMPLE LETTER (alexander.italianer@ec.europa.eu, guenther.oettinger@ec.europa.eu, jose-manuel.barroso@ec.europa.eu) Subject line: NO SUBSIDIES FOR NUCLEAR POWER Dear Director-General Italianer, Commissioner Oettinger, and President Barroso, Despite one report to the contrary (bit.ly/HGErg1), it appears that there is substance in reports (bit.ly/ID84P1, bit.ly/HHt9FZ)
that four European countries have called on the EU to allow nuclear
power to get the same kinds of subsidies as solar and wind power -- on
the grounds that it is “an emissions-free technology”.But:- Nuclear
power is far from being an emissions-free technology. Peer-reviewed
research shows that the nuclear cycle emits between 9 and 25 times as
much CO2 as wind power (Energy Policy, 2010, Part I , doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040, bit.ly/mPTv74).
- Nuclear power is already heavily subsidised (bit.ly/wPVERU).
The Economist has written that "More than half of the subsidies (in
real terms) ever lavished on energy by OECD governments have gone to the
nuclear industry." The Union of Concerned Scientists has written that
“Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty
years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy
produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply
buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away.”
- Nuclear power plants are notoriously slow to build. In general, renewables can be built very much faster than nuclear plants (bit.ly/HSMPY9).
If we are worried about cutting emissions quickly (and we should be),
or if we are worried about any possible shortfall in supplies, then
renewables are the way to go.
- Far
from providing security of energy supplies, failure of a nuclear power
station is exceptionally disruptive on the grid. By contrast, gradual
and predictable variations in output from renewables are much easier to
manage. There is now a range of techniques that can ensure robust and
reliable supplies of electricity from 100% renewable sources of power (bit.ly/I4E5vr).
- There
is good evidence from reputable sources that there are more than enough
renewable sources of power to meet all our needs for energy (not just
electricity) now and for the foreseeable future (bit.ly/9MKP5i). There are now many reports showing how to decarbonise the world’s economies without nuclear power (bit.ly/wRQ8ro). And several countries are now aiming to decarbonise their economies without nuclear power.
- Contrary to the often-repeated claim that nuclear power is cheap, it is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity (bit.ly/IlTB8Y).
- Nuclear
power is a long-established industry that should be commercially-viable
without support. Subsidies should be reserved for renewable
technologies that are relatively new and have not yet reached the bottom
of their cost-reduction curves.
- Nuclear power has many problems (bit.ly/IyslTI)
including the risk of disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima,
the still-unsolved problem of what to do with waste that will remain
dangerous for thousands of years, and facilitating the proliferation of
nuclear weapons.
- The
tumbling cost of photovoltaics and the falling cost of other renewables
mean that, by the time any new nuclear power station could be built,
much of the market for its electricity will be disappearing (see “Market
Risk” in “The financial risks of investing in new nuclear power plants”
(bit.ly/JhdNtL)).
This could lead to a situation where poorer people are forced to pay
for nuclear white elephants (see “A subsidy for nuclear power and its
unintended consequences” (bit.ly/OhrPfO)).
In terms of the fight against climate change, security of energy supplies, and other considerations, nuclear
power diverts attention, effort, and large amounts of money away from
better and cheaper solutions, where those resources would be more
effectively spent.Please do all in your power to ensure that nuclear plants will NOT be eligible for any new subsidies, and to remove existing subsidies for nuclear power.With thanks,[Name etc] |
|