Labour green group seeks to oust pro-nuclear Miliband Call for minister to step down from campaign role LABOUR ACTIVISTS are mounting a bidtoousttheenvironmentminister, David Miliband, as head oftheparty'sgreenwingbecausehesupportsnuclearpower.
Miliband, increasingly mentioned as a possible challenger to Gordon Brown for Labour leader, was appointed president oftheSocialistEnvironmentand Resources Association (Sera) in January. Sera is affiliated to the Labour Party, and has been influential in formulating its environmental policy for years.
AlthoughSerahasalwaysopposed nuclear power, Miliband has repeatedly said the technology has a role to play in tackling climate change.
NowScottishSeramembersarespearheading a campaigntoforce Miliband out. They say more than 30 members across the UK have pledged to sign a letter demanding a meeting to discuss a motioncallingonMilibandto "graciously move aside".
The motion claims those involved in installing Miliband "have done much to neutralise the authority of Sera within theenergydebate", and he shouldbe replaced by "a candidate who is more inclined to loyally represent Sera by being opposed to nuclear power".
Sera Scotland has also asked the association's UK executive to reconsider Miliband's position when it meets in London tomorrow. Although Miliband waschosenbytheexecutive,his appointment has still to be ratified at an annual general meeting later this year.
"It'snotappropriateforDavid Miliband to be president of Sera," said Claudia Beamish, Sera Scotland's energy spokeswoman. Beamish is also first on Labour's list of candidates for the May elections for the South of Scotland.
Radiation expert Dr Ian Fairlie, a Sera member in London for over 30 years, quit over Miliband's appointment. Sera had been set up as an anti-nuclear organisation in the 1970s and had played a key role opposing nuclear power ever since, he said. "To have this history overturned on the whim of the present chairman and his pro-Blair executive was too much."
But a spokesman for Miliband said the minister had no intention of standing down as president, and suggested criticswithinSerawereintheminority.
"Most people will be delighted to have David Miliband as their president. He respects that people have different views on nuclear power, but his view is that, along with renewables and carbon capture and storage, it will have a role to play if we are to have a low-carbon economy."
Although Sera's UK chairman, Hywel Lloyd, stressed the organisation was still opposed to nuclear power, he said there were only a handful of Miliband dissenters."Mostpeoplethinkhe'sthe right person to make Sera influential in the party. His advantages hugely outweigh his disadvantages."
|
|
Posted by: Ted on 11:20pm Sat 31 Mar 07
Anyone need any further evidence of how seriously Labour don't take the environment?
[bold]"What is unbelievably depressing about the [Conservative] government's response is that they see, in the evidence about greenhouse gases, not an opportunity to promote environmental concern but a chance to make the case for nuclear power" - Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock's shadow energy secretary, 1988-89[/bold]
Anyone need any further evidence of how seriously Labour don't take the environment?
"What is unbelievably depressing about the government's response is that they see, in the evidence about greenhouse gases, not an opportunity to promote environmental concern but a chance to make the case for nuclear power" - Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock's shadow energy secretary, 1988-89 Posted by: J Brown, Somerset on 1:56pm Sun 1 Apr 07
Any chance of getting David Milliband to read 'Wolves of Water' by Chris Busby? This would persuade him that more nuclear power is the last thing we need. We've had 40 years of illness caused by radiation from Hinkley Point, Berkeley and Oldbury nuclear power stations. The new Severn Barrage or Lagoons will produce more power than all three without killing anyone and without leaving £80billion of waste.
Any chance of getting David Milliband to read 'Wolves of Water' by Chris Busby? This would persuade him that more nuclear power is the last thing we need. We've had 40 years of illness caused by radiation from Hinkley Point, Berkeley and Oldbury nuclear power stations. The new Severn Barrage or Lagoons will produce more power than all three without killing anyone and without leaving £80billion of waste.
Posted by: Robert Palgrave, Woking on 7:16am Tue 3 Apr 07
There really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors. This method of creating electricity from sunshine is quite different from the better-known photovoltaics (PV).
It is the remarkably simple but effective technique of using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat and then using the heat to raise steam to drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. Because it does not use the relatively expensive PV panels, it is the most cost-effective way of generating solar electricity in hot deserts and other areas where there is lots of direct sunshine.
It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
There really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors. This method of creating electricity from sunshine is quite different from the better-known photovoltaics (PV).
It is the remarkably simple but effective technique of using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat and then using the heat to raise steam to drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. Because it does not use the relatively expensive PV panels, it is the most cost-effective way of generating solar electricity in hot deserts and other areas where there is lots of direct sunshine.
It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.
In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
Posted by: Scots Man, Edinburgh on 12:04am Thu 5 Apr 07
All the good people in SERA should stop campaigning for a party that doesn't act on the environment and supports nuclear power and nuvlear weapons. Its time to vote Green, before its too late!
All the good people in SERA should stop campaigning for a party that doesn't act on the environment and supports nuclear power and nuvlear weapons. Its time to vote Green, before its too late!
Posted by: Michael Stuart, Richmond, Virginia on 6:49pm Thu 19 Apr 07
CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx
Michael Stuart
http://www.na-ygn.org/
CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNuclear/TheBasics/tabid/66/Default.aspx
Michael Stuart
http://www.na-ygn.org/
Posted by: Robert Palgrave, Woking on 7:32am Wed 9 May 07
CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER
Michael Stuart's post about concentrating solar power (CSP) is riddled with errors.
Far from being inefficient, CSP has huge potential to supply the world with clean electricity. It has been calculated that, if it was covered with CSP plants, an area of hot desert measuring 254 km x 254 km — which is less than 1% of the area of deserts around the world — would generate as much electricity as the world currently consumes. And it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. 90% of the world's population could be supplied from this source.
CSP is much less expensive than suggested in Mr Stuart's comments, and costs are falling all the time. US venture capitalist Vinod Khosla says that CSP is poised for explosive growth because of its low costs. The 'TRANS-CSP' report, commissioned by the German government, calculates that CSP is likely to become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission.
By contrast, nuclear power is much more expensive than commonly suggested. Figures for the cost of nuclear power normally ignore hidden subsidies such as the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations and the costs of guarding against terrorist attacks. One of the biggest hidden subsidies is the fact that nuclear power only has to pay a small fraction of the cost of insuring against the costs of a Chernobyl-style accident, or worse. "... in the United States, the Price-Anderson Act limits the nuclear industry's liability in the event of a catastrophic accident to $9.1 billion, which is less than 2% of the $600 billion guaranteed by the Congress. In any case, $600 billion is considered to be a gross underestimate ..." (Helen Caldicott, "Nuclear power is not the answer", p. 32).
Compared with the horrendous pollution problems and risks associated with nuclear power (see www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm), the environmental impacts of CSP are tiny. Since a very small proportion of the world's hot deserts would be needed for CSP, there would be plenty left over for wildlife. Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk .
CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER
Michael Stuart's post about concentrating solar power (CSP) is riddled with errors.
Far from being inefficient, CSP has huge potential to supply the world with clean electricity. It has been calculated that, if it was covered with CSP plants, an area of hot desert measuring 254 km x 254 km — which is less than 1% of the area of deserts around the world — would generate as much electricity as the world currently consumes. And it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. 90% of the world's population could be supplied from this source.
CSP is much less expensive than suggested in Mr Stuart's comments, and costs are falling all the time. US venture capitalist Vinod Khosla says that CSP is poised for explosive growth because of its low costs. The 'TRANS-CSP' report, commissioned by the German government, calculates that CSP is likely to become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission.
By contrast, nuclear power is much more expensive than commonly suggested. Figures for the cost of nuclear power normally ignore hidden subsidies such as the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations and the costs of guarding against terrorist attacks. One of the biggest hidden subsidies is the fact that nuclear power only has to pay a small fraction of the cost of insuring against the costs of a Chernobyl-style accident, or worse. "... in the United States, the Price-Anderson Act limits the nuclear industry's liability in the event of a catastrophic accident to $9.1 billion, which is less than 2% of the $600 billion guaranteed by the Congress. In any case, $600 billion is considered to be a gross underestimate ..." (Helen Caldicott, "Nuclear power is not the answer", p. 32).
Compared with the horrendous pollution problems and risks associated with nuclear power (see www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm), the environmental impacts of CSP are tiny. Since a very small proportion of the world's hot deserts would be needed for CSP, there would be plenty left over for wildlife. Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk .
Posted by: Thomas, Dunfermline on 3:29pm Tue 5 Jun 07
Claudia Beamish cannot get even her local Labour Party to agree with her views on nuclear power. Shame that she still doesn't accept that the Scottish labour Party supports nuclear as part of a balanced energy policy.
Claudia Beamish cannot get even her local Labour Party to agree with her views on nuclear power. Shame that she still doesn't accept that the Scottish labour Party supports nuclear as part of a balanced energy policy.
Comment | Read Comments (7)
Print this story
Email to a friend
