Tell EU Commissioners to Stop Dodgy Nuclear Deal- tell them before 8am tomorrow


– please feel free to cut and paste and write in your own words the letter below to ‘undecided’ EU commissioners . They will be voting tomorrow on whether to allow the UK government to use profligate amounts of the UK’s public money to pay for new nuclear and to allow UK goverment to be held to ransom with ‘compensation to operators’  should the UK government take a political decision not to go ahead once the deal has been signed.  This is madness. (Latvia) (Sweden) (Bulgaria) (Malta) (Ireland) (Greece) (Cyprus)

Dear Commissioner ,

Radiation Free Lakeland are a voluntary group in Cumbria – we have approx
5000 supporters who oppose new nuclear next to Sellafield and the number
is growing.


Here in Cumbria the waste continues to arrive from Hinkley B by rail
through towns and villages to be reprocessed. This increases the volume
of waste streams which are
a) dispersed to the environment and
b) held in disgraceful conditions

The ONLY state aid the nuclear industry should receive is to ensure the
safety of Cumbrians and Europeans with regards the Sellafield plant.

We are astonished to read reports that the European Commission may to do a
U turn on its original view that aid would be incompatible under EU state
aid rules.

Nuclear power started in the UK with Magnox reactors in the 1950s. The
so-called legacy waste continues to arrive at Sellafield by the week.

The UK is ruthlessly promoting nuclear power in the press and media as
carbon free. This is a myth. If the full life carbon audit from uranium
mining to proposed geological disposal and the carbon footprint of
accidents such as Windscale, Three Mile Island and Fukushima was included
nuclear power may even be in energy deficit. The fossil fuel energy
needed for waste storage and accident is unquantifiable. Sellafield
stopped producing electricity in 2003 but uses over £30M of gas every year
-and gets it cheap.

Nuclear power is a mature technology in that it has been around for
decades. It should by now be commercially viable without state aid. The UK
in contrast plans to scrap support for the younger and more economically
robust industry of solar installations over 5MW.

The argument that new nuclear will provide security of electricity supply
is untenable given that the earliest new build proposed would not take
place until 2023 for Hinkley C in Somerset and 2024 for Moorside (next to
the world’s largest stockpile of plutonium). Uranium for the new build
reactors would come from for example Peru, Australia, Canada, Russia.

The waste from the new build reactors would be hotter, requiring
unquantifiable fresh water resources for decades of cooling.

If state aid is given to Hinkley C, this would smooth the way for new
build at Sellafield, thereby increasing an already intolerable risk to
Cumbria and the wider European Community.

Please ensure that your initial resolve is upheld, that aid would be
incompatible under EU state aid rules.

yours sincerely,
Marianne Birkby
on behalf of Radiation Free Lakeland


2 thoughts on “Tell EU Commissioners to Stop Dodgy Nuclear Deal- tell them before 8am tomorrow

  1. Reblogged this on Mining Awareness Plus and commented:
    UK Nuclear Subsidies are Unfair Business Practices. If EU allows this it will surely impact most countries through trade deals. EDF who would build the reactors is 85% French gov owned (read subsidized), which is also unfair business practices. 8 am BST is 9 am CEST and 3 am EDT (US)

  2. marianne, just mailed all seven the following
    Dear Androulla,
    As a UK citizen, I write to you to implore you to refuse the state subsidy proposed by the UK government for Hinkley Point nuclear power station. The subsidy, which as I understand it would be illegal under EU competition legislation, will lock us in the UK to paying over twice the current price of electricity for 35 years, if not more. This huge amount of cash flowing from state coffers/ UK taxpayers to EDF, the French government-owned electricity company, will eliminate the other clean, safe options like wind and solar power. Onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear, can be built quickly, and doesn’t produce waste that will threaten future generations for thousands of years.
    Please vote No in todays vote. Thankyou.
    (real name)
    London, England

    (rik, Kick Nuclear, London)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s