There are fears amongst environmentalists that the proposed new generation of nuclear power stations could be built in flood-risk or supposedly environmentally protected areas of the country. This is because green safeguards are listed merely as “discretionary” amongst criteria, which government ministers intend to use to decide where to site the reactors, whereas commonsense should dictate that these are precisely the sensitive areas that should be ruled out!

 

Under Labour’s so-called Strategic Siting Assessment system, nominations for “credible” sites - crucially “backed by nuclear firms” - will be sought early next year. They would then be evaluated against a set of criteria before being put forward for planning permission - possibly using a the controversial planned “fast-track” approach that disregards public opinion.

 

It is claimed that although sites at risk of earthquake or near heavily populated areas will be instantly ruled out, this will not be the case where sites prone to flooding, coastal erosion or environmentally protected are concerned. Leaving the door open for the construction of the power stations, for which work is likely to begin around 2013, on environmentally valuable sites is seen as yet further evidence of this government’s apathetic attitude towards the environment.

 

A Government spokesman said: “Nuclear power is an essential part of our future energy mix. And, alongside a ten-fold increase in renewables and investment in clean coal technology, it will help wean us off our dependency on oil and protect us against the politicisation of energy supplies. So, we must do everything we can to remove any remaining barriers and open up the UK as the most attractive place in the world to invest in nuclear power. The strategic siting assessment is the next step towards a Nuclear National Policy Statement. This will help to speed up planning applications while making clear that safety and engagement with local communities are key.”

 

Not surprising then that some commentators are wondering whether the provision of investment prospects for nuclear programme speculators is higher up the Government’s agenda than environmental protection!

 

Details of a planned environmental assessment of the nuclear new-build project were also published today, which showed it would examine “the likely significant effects on the environment including biodiversity, population and human health, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage and landscape.” All of which sounds fine in theory but when taken in the context of the Government’s stated evaluation priorities, amounts to very little - hence its perception by many as a piece of political posturing.

 

There will also, we understand, be a Habitats Regulations Assessment to monitor the potential effects on areas protected as part of the European Union’s Natura 2000 project. Interestingly, the Government’s Department for Business dismissed reported a few weeks ago that it had already drawn up a list of sites alongside existing reactors - including Sizewell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Dungeness, Hinkley Point, and Bradwell - as the most suitable places. Despite the denial the truth will only emerge next year - an announcement that Land & People is awaiting with much interest.

Note: the big-lies site maintains there is a good case for nuclear power being a fraud. This idea surfaced at about the time of the BNP green site, though it remains under-publicised. Click on Nuclear Power Doubts —and yes, I know it sounds unbelievable if you haven't heard it before.