UK government lied about need for nuclear power

[kristopher]

Ministers 'misled MPs over need for nuclear power stations'
Cross-party report says government misrepresented findings on future electricity demand, and ignored case against nuclear
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 January 2012 12.35 EST

Ministers misled parliament over the need to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations, distorting evidence and presenting to MPs a false summary of the analysis they had commissioned, a group of MPs and experts alleged in a report published on Tuesday.

If MPs had been presented with an accurate picture of the evidence for and against new reactors, the government's plans might have been challenged, according to the report. Both the previous Labour government and the current coalition overstated the evidence that new nuclear power was needed, it also alleged.

Building new nuclear power stations is highly controversial, as polls consistently show a substantial minority opposing them. But many people, including some environmental campaigners, have been persuaded towards supporting nuclear by the argument that they would help the UK generate power without carbon dioxide emissions.

The previous government cited its own research in order to make that case, but according to today's report, some of the findings were misrepresented when relayed to MPs by ministers. For instance, the report found that rather than assess the requirement for new nuclear power stations and then work out how many would be needed, the government commissioned research that took as its central assumption that 10 new reactors would be built and then presented its research as evidence of the need for 10 reactors....

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/31/ministers-misled-nuclear-power-stations


Related:

Can the UK achieve its carbon targets without nuclear power?
A new report, which has attracted cross-party support, is claiming that the government's decision in favour of nuclear power was "corrupted" by "false" information. Corruption of Governance? (pdf) was jointly written by Unlock Democracy and the Association for the Conservation of Energy and it argues that "this corruption of governance can only be rectified if Parliament re-opens this debate, and MPs vote on this issue having seen the correct information".

One of the report's central arguments is that, according to the government's own figures, "there is absolutely no need for any more nuclear power stations to deliver energy security ('keep the lights on') and achieve 80% reductions in carbon dioxide by 2050".

In part, it says that this is down to the fact that the government stated that the UK's electricity supply will need to "double or even triple" in order to achieve a low-carbon economy. But the report states that this was based on flawed information and assumptions about electricity "needs" by 2025 and beyond. It led to some contorted thinking, it adds:

The [government's] pre-determined policy of [needing] 10 new nuclear power stations created the 'central assumption' of the need for them. Rather than the need driving the policy, the policy dictated the so-called need.

...

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2012/feb/01/nuclear-power-carbon-emissions-target


Report 'Corruption of Governance' can be downloaded here
http://www.ukace.org/publications/ACE%20Campaigns%20%282012-01%29%20-%20Corruption%20of%20Governance%20-%20Jan%202012

[FBaggins]

1. "This Report is published by two organisations that are not formally opposed to nuclear power."

Lol... but written by two people from "No Need For Nuclear" which says "Our goal is to stop the building of new nuclear power stations in the UK."

Ironic that they start a 35-page attempt to call others liars... with intentional misdirection.

[kristopher]

3. "A Corruption of Governance? "

A Corruption of Governance?
January 2012
The authors of this report are Ron Bailey and Lotte Blair.

This Report is published by two organisations that are not formally opposed to nuclear power.

The Association for the Conservation of Energy is publishing it because it believes that the mis-information highlighted in this report has resulted in ‘demand-side’ measures being downplayed as the report describes.

Unlock Democracy is publishing this Report because of the issues it raises regarding governance. Ministers and Parliament need the correct information on which to base decisions but they did not get it.

The Association for the Conservation of Energy
Westgate House, 2a Prebend Street, London, N1 8PT 020 7359 8000
http://www.ukace.org

Unlock Democracy
6-9 Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF 020 7278 4443
http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk

[FBaggins]

4. Lol! No ability to reply...

...but no ability to stop yourself.

The report is clearly written by anti-nuke activists who dishonestly desire to portray their output as something other than what it is.

[kristopher]

6. Did the Government lie or not?

By your definition anyone that is critical of nuclear power does not have a valid voice in discussions on energy. Must be a nice warm fuzzy "reality" you live in where such logical fallacies are the only thing required to reshape the world to your preferences.

Are the organizations that put their name on the publication "anti-nuke"?

Did the Government lie or not?

Is nuclear needed or not?

[FBaggins]

7. Not.

By your definition anyone that is critical of nuclear power does not have a valid voice in discussions on energy.

That's nonsense. Though it does match the inverse of your position.

What I pointed out was that they obviously recognized their own bias and went out of their way to try to mute the public perception of it. I never said that they didn't have a right to an opinion... I merely laughed at the irony that they would start off a paper claiming deceptive tactics... with overt deception on their own part.

Are the organizations that put their name on the publication "anti-nuke"?

Quite probably... but it hardly matters, since the organization that produced it clearly is.

Is nuclear needed or not?

In the abstract? No. If the UK wants to hit an 80% reduction in carbon emmissions while maintainint a reliable/stable grid (absent a new technology)? Yes.

On edit - It would also be possible if you accept a much higher expense. You could, for instance, build a great deal of gas generation capacity that you expect to idle most of the time (and thus subsidize at great expense).

[kristopher]

8. Your perception is self serving and not in line with the evidence

Can the UK achieve its carbon targets without nuclear power?
A new report, which has attracted cross-party support, is claiming that the government's decision in favour of nuclear power was "corrupted" by "false" information. Corruption of Governance? (pdf) was jointly written by Unlock Democracy and the Association for the Conservation of Energy and it argues that "this corruption of governance can only be rectified if Parliament re-opens this debate, and MPs vote on this issue having seen the correct information".

One of the report's central arguments is that, according to the government's own figures, "there is absolutely no need for any more nuclear power stations to deliver energy security ('keep the lights on') and achieve 80% reductions in carbon dioxide by 2050".

...

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2012/feb/01/nuclear-power-carbon-emissions-target


Report 'Corruption of Governance' can be downloaded here
http://www.ukace.org/publications/ACE%20Campaigns%20%282012-01%29%20-%20Corruption%20of%20Governance%20-%20Jan%202012

[FBaggins]

9. The "evidence" here is what is self-serving.

They didn't DO any real work or analysys. They just played around with the tool that was already provided by DECC. It's self-serving to even call it a "report".

What they failed to address is that the analysis they're calling "corruption of governance" closely matches that of other reliable organizations (the European Commission for instance... which said the same thing).

What's entertaining is that you take an incredibly biased "report" produced with virtually no relevant expertise (and no science whatsoever) and accept it as "evidence" against far more relevant work by much more competent authors.

Goodness... need we compare the CV for a just-out-of-university activist with actual scientists?

[kristopher]

10. Show the basis of your statements

As usual you're long on claims but short on arguments with actual meat on the bones.

The report speaks for itself and shows your claims to be hogwash.

Can the UK achieve its carbon targets without nuclear power?
A new report, which has attracted cross-party support, is claiming that the government's decision in favour of nuclear power was "corrupted" by "false" information. ...

One of the report's central arguments is that, according to the government's own figures, "there is absolutely no need for any more nuclear power stations to deliver energy security ('keep the lights on') and achieve 80% reductions in carbon dioxide by 2050".

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/blog/2012/feb/01/nuclear-power-carbon-emissions-target


Report 'Corruption of Governance' can be downloaded here
http://www.ukace.org/publications/ACE%20Campaigns%20%282012-01%29%20-%20Corruption%20of%20Governance%20-%20Jan%202012

[FBaggins]

11. Lol... prove a negative?

You don't think that a statement that they lacked any actual new analysis is better rebutted by showing some real analysis?

[kristopher]

12. The report is an accurate representation of the facts.

If you can show where it isn't by all means do so.

[FBaggins]

14. Not really. It doesn't actually present any "facts"

It doesn't present any new data or analysis.

[Maslo55]

2. this is a no brainer

"In part, it says that this is down to the fact that the government stated that the UK's electricity supply will need to "double or even triple" in order to achieve a low-carbon economy."

Of course it WILL need to at least double, if we want to subsitute all oil fuels based transportation (cars, trucks) with electric vehicles. Most of our ENERGY use (not just electricity) is used for transportation, satisfied with oil fuels.

If the report is based on flawed assumption that in order to reduce fossil fuel use by 80% we dont need to hugely increase our (non-carbon) electricity supply, it is flawed. From where will the energy needed to substitute petrol fuels come from, pixie dust?

According to the US Energy Information Administration's 2006 estimate, the estimated 471.8 EJ total consumption in 2004 was divided as follows, with fossil fuels supplying 86% of the world's energy.

This 86% would have to come from non-carbon electricity in the future, if we want to phase out fossil fuels. And most of this 86% is transportation fuels.

[kristopher]

5. You clearly didn't read the report.

The papers and claims made based on them did address both total energy use and moving the various sectors (including transportation) to electricity as an energy carrier.

However, the point that it was an incomplete analysis in many ways is, pretty much, a part of the central point of the critique; which is that the report (and the false government presentation that followed) was designed to promote nuclear power instead of objectively evaluate the the needs of Britian and fully explore the available alternatives to meet those needs.


If the nuclear industry has such a good product, why do they need to continually lie?

[kristopher]

13. If nuclear is so good why do its supporters need to engage in this type of activity??

This analysis is a sharp stick in the eye for those who have been pushing nuclear in Britain.

2. How the Coalition Government’s decision to continue supporting new nuclear power was not based on its own evidence

The previous Government made the decision that we need 10 new nuclear power stations on the basis of no evidence. Now the current Coalition Government has re-stated the decision in its National Policy Statements that there is a need for (possibly 10) new nuclear power stations
(i) despite the fact that the evidence that has been produced on its behalf shows the exact opposite; and
(ii) that evidence has then been presented in such a way as to justify that decision and
(iii) a public consultation on whether we need new nuclear power stations has been held in circumstances whereby the only conclusion possible was the pro-nuclear one; and
(iv) still no full assessment of the potential for what it regards as the cheapest and most cost-effective policy – energy saving/conservation – has been carried out.

Given the persuasive case made it's no wonder the proponents of nuclear here are trying to divert attention from the contents.
'Corruption of Governance' can be downloaded here
http://www.ukace.org/publications/ACE%20Campaigns%20%282012-01%29%20-%20Corruption%20of%20Governance%20-%20Jan%202012


I wonder if this has anything to do with Huhne having to step down?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/03/chris-huhnes-resignation-coalition-power-shift_n_1252238.html

[FBaggins]

15. Assumes facts not in evidence.

A pair of irrelevant anti-nuke activists writting a puff piece for their own position doesn't demonstrate much of anything.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. If nuclear power is so bad, why do it's opponents need to engage in this sort of activity?

This paper doesn't contain any facts, it's just a list of "we don't understand these numbers, therefore nuclear power is bad" complaints.

Now, I'm not surprised that you find it persuasive, but I'm stumped as to why you think anyone else would be convinced.