Difference between revisions of "Nuclear spin"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(NuclearSpin News: nuke activists article)
 
(78 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
     <td width="60%"><p align="left"><B></B></p>
 
     <td width="60%"><p align="left"><B></B></p>
  
== NuclearSpin==
+
== Welcome==
 +
'Welcome to '''NuclearSpin''', a website that tracks the companies, people and organisations behind the campaign to build new nuclear power stations in the UK and worldwide.
  
Welcome to NuclearSpin, your unique portal on the nuclear debate.
+
It aims to give you information on who is influencing the debate about nuclear energy, and the tactics that they use to persuade the public we need more nuclear power.[[File:HinkleyC z CCSA.jpg‎|525px|left|thumb|Hinkley Point C in Somerset, England. Source: Flickr/CCSA]]
Nuclear power remains central to the British government’s plans for energy. In May 2012, the new Energy Secretary [[Ed Davey]] told the [[Nuclear Development Forum]], the industry-government body which coordinates new build in the UK, that the government believed “the UK remains the best place in the world to invest in new nuclear”. <ref> Nuclear Development Forum, [http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/nuclear/5602-nuclear-development-forum-minutes-15th-may-2012.pdf Minutes], 15 May 2012 </ref>
 
  
At the same meeting, [[Vincent de Rivaz]], the head of [[EDF Energy]], thanked the British government for their “sense of confidence that new nuclear in the UK should and will go ahead". 2012, he added, is the “defining year” for new nuclear in the UK.
+
==Become a contributor==
  
Despite Fukushima and the pull-outs of the nuclear market by other operators, de Rivaz’s message to the nuclear industry was to “Carry On and to Keep Calm.” <ref> Nuclear Development Forum, [http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/nuclear/5602-nuclear-development-forum-minutes-15th-may-2012.pdf Minutes], 15 May 2012 </ref> It is business as usual.  
+
'''NuclearSpin''' is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by a wide variety of volunteers and independent researchers, and is part of [http://www.powerbase.info Powerbase].
  
But many unanswered questions remain over nuclear: especially over safety, subsidies and waste. All these issues have not yet been resolved, yet the British government is pushing ahead with a new generation of nuclear power plants. In May 2010, the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said there would no public subsidies for nuclear. However, we know that the Coalition is trying to wriggle around this commitment by fudging to floor price for carbon. They may well fudge the decommissioning costs too. There is also evidence that the industry and government colluded to spin the safety message after Fukushima.  
+
If you'd like to help us expand and update our '''NuclearSpin''' site, '''please email our [[User:Melissa Jones|editor]] Melissa Jones'''. All contributions, big or small are welcome.
  
Even MPs do not trust the Government to tell the truth about nuclear. In July 2012, the Science and Technology Committee concluded that "the Government's position as an advocate for nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as an impartial source of information. <ref> Science and Technology Committee, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/428/42805.htm Devil's bargain? Energy risks and the public], First Report, 9 July 2012 </ref>
+
==About us==
 +
'''NuclearSpin''' was set up in 2006 to track a massive lobbying campaign launched by the nuclear industry. In that same year, the British Government began a public consultation which raised the possibility for the first time in many years that new nuclear power stations could be built.  
  
This site is designed to help you see through the nuclear spin. Throughout 2012 we will be updating this portal and its associated pages, the bulk of which were developed in 2008-09. If you'd like to help us by becoming a Powerbase contributor, please email the managing editor melissa.jones@powerbase.info
+
Even though the High Court ruled in 2007 that the Government’s consultation was "misleading, seriously flawed, manifestly inadequate and procedurally unfair", and its plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations were "unlawful", Ministers still pushed ahead.<ref> Deborah Summers, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,2013618,00.html Government loses nuclear power case], ''The Guardian'', 15 February 2007, </ref> <ref> BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm Nuclear Review "Was Misleading"], 15 February 2007, </ref>
  
== "A devil’s bargain – a choice of last resort" ==
+
'''NuclearSpin''' showed how the Labour Government [http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/nuclearmonitor/NNM14.pdf helped the nuclear industry] and documented the close links between nuclear insiders and powerful politicians, such as Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] and Planning Minister [[Yvette Cooper]].
  
In spring 2012, the [[Nuclear Industry Association]] (NIA) argued that “After the unprecedented tsunami in Japan last March and the damage inflicted upon the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, it was hardly surprising that a poll conducted in June 2011 saw a drop in public support for nuclear, with the results showing that people with favourable opinions about nuclear fell from 40% to 28% and unfavourable opinions increased from 17% to 24%.
+
In 2008, the site was expanded to look at the industry campaign for new nuclear in other countries, expose [[The Secret Pro-Nuclear Push In British Schools]] and explain why [[Nuclear is not the Answer to Climate Change]].  
  
It continued: “However, a recent survey conducted in December 2011 by Ipsos MORI has indicated that the dip in support for nuclear energy has been short-lived, with figures all but returning to those marked in polls conducted before Fukushima - favourability towards the industry recovered to 40% and unfavourable opinions reduced to 19%.
+
Nuclear power is now central to the British government’s plans for future energy. But our politicians are not being straight with us about the cost of nuclear power or its safety.  
  
The NIA's Chief Executive, [[Keith Parker]] argued that, "The poll clearly shows that public opinion has not only recovered from last summer’s dip but it has also resumed its gradual year-on year improvement. The 50% support figure for new build is the highest it has ever been." <ref> NIA, [http://www.niauk.org/images/industry_link/industrylink_35.pdf Nuclear: What do the public think?], ''IndustryLink'', Issue No.35 Spring 2012 </ref>
+
For example, the coalition agreement between the [[Conservatives]] and [[Liberal Democrats]] in May 2010 said there would no public subsidies for nuclear – but the Government is now discussing “contracts guaranteeing subsidies for up to 40 years”.<ref> Juliette Jowit, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/18/nuclear-power-ministers-reactor Nuclear power: ministers offer reactor deal until 2050], ‘’The Guardian’’, 18 February 2013</ref> We explore this in our 2012 briefing paper [[Media:NuclearSubsidies_SpinWatch_briefing_May_2012.pdf|Broken Promises: Subsiding the Nuclear Industry]].
  
However, Professor [[Nick Pidgeon]], Director of the Understanding Risk Programme, Cardiff University, giving evidence to the House of Commons [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] argues that “a large proportion of recent support” for nuclear power “remain[s] conditional - a 'reluctant acceptance' at best" and added that "while many more in Britain have indeed come to support nuclear power over the past decade they do so while viewing it only as a 'devil's bargain', a choice of last resort in the face of the threat of climate change”. <ref> Science and Technology Select Committee,  [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/428/42805.htm Devil's bargain? Energy risks and the public], 9 July 2012</ref>
+
The Government also colluded with the [[Nuclear Industry Association]] to play down the safety implications of the nuclear accident at [[Fukushima]] in Japan in 2011.  
  
== Background ==
+
In July 2012, the House of Commons [[Science and Technology Committee]] concluded that public does not trust the Government to tell the truth about nuclear. It said 'the Government's position as an advocate for nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as an impartial source of information'.<ref> Science and Technology Committee, [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmsctech/428/42805.htm Devil's bargain? Energy risks and the public], First Report, 9 July 2012 </ref>  
 
+
'''
NuclearSpin was originally launched in response to the British Government's 12-week consultation on energy in 2006. In 2007 the High Court ruled that the government's plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations were "unlawful" and the way it consulted with the public over the decision was "misleading, seriously flawed, manifestly inadequate and procedurally unfair".<ref> Deborah Summers, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,2013618,00.html Government loses nuclear power case], ''The Guardian'', 15 February 2007, </ref> <ref> BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm Nuclear Review "Was Misleading"], 15 February 2007, </ref>
+
This site is designed to help you see through the nuclear spin'''.  
 
 
What made [[Gordon Brown]]'s decision in January 2008 to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear plants politically sensitive was his younger brother [[Andrew Brown]]'s role as director of communications with [[EDF Energy]], the UK subsidiary of [[EDF]] and one of the leading companies pushing for a nuclear rebuild programme in the UK.
 
 
 
The Labour Government also sped up the planning process, making it easier for nuclear power plants to be built. Planning Minister [[Yvette Cooper]] was criticised for her "nuclear cronyism" due to her father's links to the nuclear industry.
 
 
 
For a full briefing on the so-called 'facilitative actions' which the Government carried out to speed up nuclear developments see [http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/nuclearmonitor/NNM14.pdf New Nuclear Monitor No.14 (pdf)]
 
 
 
To help people make up their own minds about nuclear power, NuclearSpin was last updated and expanded in 2008/09 with the following information:
 
 
 
* New sections on countries and regions, including [[Nuclear: Australia|Australia]], [[Nuclear: Belgium|Belgium]], [[Nuclear: Canada|Canada]], the [[Nuclear: EU|EU]], [[Nuclear: Finland|Finland]], [[Nuclear: France|France]], [[Nuclear: Germany|Germany]], [[Nuclear: Japan|Japan]], [[Nuclear: United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] and [[Nuclear: United States|United States]];
 
 
 
* Expanded profiles on pro-nuclear organisations and lobby groups.
 
 
 
* An analysis section, including Why [[Nuclear is not the Answer to Climate Change]] and [[The_Secret_Pro-Nuclear_Push_In_Schools]].
 
 
 
* NuclearSpin also worked with [http://www.sourcewatch.org Sourcewatch] to develop a [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Nuclear_Issues Nuclear Portal page]. Some articles and profiles were deleted from this NuclearSpin site and moved across to SourceWatch. Deleted pages include a redirect to the relevant Sourcewatch page.
 
 
 
In 2012 we began the process of updating the NuclearSpin portal, focusing on the companies and individuals who are pushing nuclear in the UK.  
 
 
     </td>
 
     </td>
 
     <td width="1%"></td>
 
     <td width="1%"></td>
 
     <td width="39%" valign="top">
 
     <td width="39%" valign="top">
  
==NuclearSpin Categories==
+
==NuclearSpin categories==
{{Template:NuclearSpin}}
+
[[File:Nuke power Flickr CCSA bagalute.jpg|right|225px|thumb|''Source:Flickr bagalute'']]
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Nuclear_Analysis '''Analysis''']
+
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Civil_nuclear_industry '''Industry''']
 +
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Nuclear_PR%2C_lobbying_and_consultancy_firms '''PR, Lobbying and Consultancy firms''']
 +
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Pro-nuclear_organisations '''Organisations''']
 
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Individuals_linked_to_the_push_for_nuclear '''Individuals''']
 
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Individuals_linked_to_the_push_for_nuclear '''Individuals''']
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Pro-nuclear_organisations '''Organisations''']
 
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Civil_nuclear_industry '''Companies''']
 
*[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Category:Nuclear_PR%2C_lobbying_and_consultancy_firms '''PR, Lobbying and Consultancy firms''']
 
  
==NuclearSpin News==
+
==NuclearSpin news==
 
+
{{Template:NuclearSpin}}
NuclearSpin or documents from this website have been covered by:  
+
NuclearSpin investigations and documents from this website have been covered by:
*Rob Edwards, [http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/67-nuclear/5522-police-trying-to-neuter-anti-nuclear-protest Police trying to neuter anti-nuclear protest], 2 October 2012  
+
*Spinwatch, [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5559-hinkley-a-huge-contribution-towards-yesterday-s-energy-thinking Hinkley: A huge contribution towards yesterday’s energy thinking], 28 October 2013
*Pete Roche, [http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/67-nuclear/5512-the-treasury-and-nuclear-power-if-they-arent-sane-how-can-we-trust-them-with-the-nations-finances The Treasury and Nuclear Power - if they aren't sane how can we trust them with the nation's finances?] 17 July 2012
+
*Spinwatch, [http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5542-ed-davey-s-nuclear-newspeak Ed Davey's nuclear Newspeak], Pete Roche, 17 September 2013
*Pete Roche, Spinwatch [http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/67-nuclear/5501-when-is-a-subsidy-not-a-subsidy When is a Subsidy not a Subsidy?], 22 May 2012  
+
*Andy Rowell, [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/safety-fears-over-elite-police-officers-drunk-on-duty-at-uks-nuclear-sites-8675660.html Safety fears over elite police officers drunk on duty at UK’s nuclear sites], ''Independent'', 26 June 2013
* ''Private Eye'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/67-nuclear/5487-waiving-the-rules-to-keep-the-nuclear-power-programme-on-course Waiving the rules to keep the nuclear power programme on course], Rob Edwards, 21 March 2012
+
*''Spinwatch'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/blog/item/5514-how-the-lib-dems-help-edf-to-fleece-the-taxpayer How the Lib Dems help EDF to fleece the taxpayer], Pete Roche, 02 July 2013 
* ''SpinWatch'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/67-nuclear/5496-the-coalition-is-set-to-break-its-promise-on-nuclear The Coalition is Set to Break its Promise on Nuclear], 9 May 2012
+
*''Spinwatch'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/component/k2/item/5507-nuclear-costs-and-financesWould you spend £1 trillion to buy more nuclear waste?], Pete Roche, 24 June 2013
 +
*''Spinwatch'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5481-nuclear-stealth-tax-will-kill-the-poor Nuclear stealth tax will kill the poor], Pete Roche, 26 March 2013
 +
*''The Independent'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5478-nuclear-boss-wants-to-cut-family-fuel-aid Nuclear boss wants to cut family fuel aid], Andy Rowell and Richard Cookson, 17 March 2013
 +
*''The Guardian'', [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/20/rwe-npower-nuclear-subsidies-warning RWE boss warns over nuclear plant subsidies], Terry Macalister and Richard Cookson, 20 February 2013, which included information from a ''Spinwatch'' investigation into [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5460-nuclear-industry-secondments-to-government-departments-responsible-for-policy-and-regulation Nuclear industry staff seconded to Government ministries], 22 Feb 2013 
 +
*''Spinwatch'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5462-the-liberal-democrats-nuclear-tax-bombshell The Liberal Democrats' nuclear tax bombshell], Pete Roche, 20 February 2013
 +
*''The Guardian'', [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/26/sellafield-emergency-readiness-nuclear-watchdog Nuclear safety watchdog criticises Sellafield's emergency readiness], Terry Macalister and Richard Cookson, 26 December 2012 also posted on [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5431-nuclear-safety-watchdog-criticises-sellafields-emergency-readiness Spinwatch], 27 December 2013
 +
*''Spinwatch'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/440-nuclear-hospitality-of-key-officials-exposed Nuclear Hospitality of Key Officials Exposed],  exclusive by Andy Rowell and Richard Cookson, 28 November 2012 (covered in [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/28/nuclear-lobbyists-senior-civil-servants ''The Guardian''])
 +
*''Spinwatch'', [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/318-big-energys-united-front-nuclear-ccs-and-renewables-lobbies-in-joint-push-for-diverse-energy-mix Big energy's united front: nuclear, CCS and renewables lobbies in joint push for "diverse energy mix"], Pete Roche, ''Spinwatch'', 8 November 2012 
 +
*[http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/439-is-the-government-about-to-start-lining-the-pockets-of-its-nuclear-friends the Government about to start lining the pockets of its nuclear friends?], Pete Roche, ''Spinwatch'', 24 October 2012
 +
*Rob Edwards, [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/438-police-trying-to-neuter-anti-nuclear-protest Police trying to neuter anti-nuclear protest], 2 October 2012  
 +
*Pete Roche, [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/429-the-treasury-and-nuclear-power-if-they-arent-sane-how-can-we-trust-them-with-the-nations-finances The Treasury and Nuclear Power - if they aren't sane how can we trust them with the nation's finances?] 17 July 2012
 +
*Pete Roche, ''Spinwatch'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/437-when-is-a-subsidy-not-a-subsidy When is a Subsidy not a Subsidy?], 22 May 2012  
 +
* ''Private Eye'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate?start=14 Waiving the rules to keep the nuclear power programme on course], Rob Edwards, 21 March 2012
 +
* ''Spinwatch'' [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/436-the-coalition-is-set-to-break-its-promise-on-nuclear The Coalition is set to break its promise on nuclear], 9 May 2012
 +
* Spinwatch, [http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/434-a-year-after-fukushima-nuclear-lobby-has-brussels-in-its-grip A year after Fukushima, nuclear lobby has Brussels in its grip], 8 March 2012
  
==Resources==
+
==Briefings==
  
===Briefings===
+
To help people understand key issues, NuclearSpin publishes a series of briefings.
  
 
'''9 May 2012''': [[Media:NuclearSubsidies_SpinWatch_briefing_May_2012.pdf|Broken Promises: Subsiding the Nuclear Industry]]
 
'''9 May 2012''': [[Media:NuclearSubsidies_SpinWatch_briefing_May_2012.pdf|Broken Promises: Subsiding the Nuclear Industry]]
  
====Briefings archive====
+
Older briefings can be found in our [[Nuclear spin briefings archive|series of in-depth analysis pieces]].  
To help people understand key issues on nuclear power, NuclearSpin in 2009 published a [[Nuclear spin briefings archive|series of in-depth analysis pieces]] on key issues surrounding the debate concerning building new nuclear power plants in the UK. We will be updating these briefings and associated pages in 2012.
 
 
   
 
   
Search for other articles on the Nuclear push at the Spinwatch [http://www.spinwatch.org/ site]
+
You can also search for other articles on the nuclear push at the [http://www.spinwatch.org/ Spinwatch] site.
 
</td>
 
</td>
 
<td width="10"></tr>
 
<td width="10"></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
[[Notes]]
+
==Notes==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Nuclear Spin]]
 
[[Category:Nuclear Spin]]

Latest revision as of 16:08, 6 April 2016

Welcome

'Welcome to NuclearSpin, a website that tracks the companies, people and organisations behind the campaign to build new nuclear power stations in the UK and worldwide.

It aims to give you information on who is influencing the debate about nuclear energy, and the tactics that they use to persuade the public we need more nuclear power.
Hinkley Point C in Somerset, England. Source: Flickr/CCSA

Become a contributor

NuclearSpin is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by a wide variety of volunteers and independent researchers, and is part of Powerbase.

If you'd like to help us expand and update our NuclearSpin site, please email our editor Melissa Jones. All contributions, big or small are welcome.

About us

NuclearSpin was set up in 2006 to track a massive lobbying campaign launched by the nuclear industry. In that same year, the British Government began a public consultation which raised the possibility for the first time in many years that new nuclear power stations could be built.

Even though the High Court ruled in 2007 that the Government’s consultation was "misleading, seriously flawed, manifestly inadequate and procedurally unfair", and its plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations were "unlawful", Ministers still pushed ahead.[1] [2]

NuclearSpin showed how the Labour Government helped the nuclear industry and documented the close links between nuclear insiders and powerful politicians, such as Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Planning Minister Yvette Cooper.

In 2008, the site was expanded to look at the industry campaign for new nuclear in other countries, expose The Secret Pro-Nuclear Push In British Schools and explain why Nuclear is not the Answer to Climate Change.

Nuclear power is now central to the British government’s plans for future energy. But our politicians are not being straight with us about the cost of nuclear power or its safety.

For example, the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in May 2010 said there would no public subsidies for nuclear – but the Government is now discussing “contracts guaranteeing subsidies for up to 40 years”.[3] We explore this in our 2012 briefing paper Broken Promises: Subsiding the Nuclear Industry.

The Government also colluded with the Nuclear Industry Association to play down the safety implications of the nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan in 2011.

In July 2012, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that public does not trust the Government to tell the truth about nuclear. It said 'the Government's position as an advocate for nuclear power makes it difficult for the public to trust it as an impartial source of information'.[4] This site is designed to help you see through the nuclear spin.

NuclearSpin categories

Source:Flickr bagalute

NuclearSpin news

Nuclear spin.png This article is part of the Nuclear Spin project of Spinwatch.

NuclearSpin investigations and documents from this website have been covered by:

Briefings

To help people understand key issues, NuclearSpin publishes a series of briefings.

9 May 2012: Broken Promises: Subsiding the Nuclear Industry

Older briefings can be found in our series of in-depth analysis pieces.

You can also search for other articles on the nuclear push at the Spinwatch site.

Notes

  1. Deborah Summers, Government loses nuclear power case, The Guardian, 15 February 2007,
  2. BBC News, Nuclear Review "Was Misleading", 15 February 2007,
  3. Juliette Jowit, Nuclear power: ministers offer reactor deal until 2050, ‘’The Guardian’’, 18 February 2013
  4. Science and Technology Committee, Devil's bargain? Energy risks and the public, First Report, 9 July 2012