A new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK has been given formal backing by the government.

Business Secretary John Hutton told MPs they would give a “safe and affordable” way of securing the UK’s future energy supplies while fighting climate change.

He said any plants would be built at or near existing reactors by private firms and said he hoped the first one would be completed “well before 2020″.

Critics say new reactors will be expensive, dirty and dangerous.

The government will not be building any reactors itself - but it says it will take steps, such as streamlining the planning process and identifying likely sites, to encourage private operators to build them.

Mr Hutton conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money - but he insisted there would be no subsidies from the UK government.

“It is a matter for the power companies to bring forward proposals on the basis that there will be no public subsidies,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One.

Public funds would only be provided in the “very unlikely circumstances of an emergency at a nuclear plant,” added Mr Hutton.

According to its white paper, the government will not offer extra incentives to invest in nuclear power, but some tax advantages may be available to firms hit by decommissioning costs to ensure a “level fiscal playing field” with other forms of electricity generation.

The government has also yet to decide how much new nuclear operators should pay towards the cost of building underground caverns as a permanent storage site for Britain’s nuclear waste.

Until a suitable site can be found, waste will continue to be stockpiled above ground at ‘interim’ facilities at Sellafield, in Cumbria, it has said.

Mr Hutton rejected calls to find a permanent storage site before giving the green light to new nuclear plants.

‘Tried and tested’

French energy giant EDF has already said it plans to build four nuclear plants in the UK by 2017, without subsidies, following the government’s announcement.

Chief executive Vincent De Rivaz said: “We have made it clear that once the right frameworks are in place, we will be in a position to move fast, move first and move safe.”

German power company E.On and British Gas parent Centrica also expressed interest in building nuclear plants in the UK, following the government’s announcement.

Speaking earlier in the Commons, Mr Hutton said the government had concluded nuclear power was a “tried and tested”, and safe, technology which had a role to play “in this country’s future energy mix alongside other low-carbon sources”.

Analysis of future gas and carbon prices showed nuclear was “affordable and provides one of the cheapest electricity options available to reduce our carbon emissions”.

Waste storage

An independent body, the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurances Board, will look at the potential clean-up costs - including any impact on electricity bills - and a review of potential sites for new reactors will report next year.

Mr Hutton assured MPs that private operators would be expected to meet the full cost of building nuclear plants, decommissioning and disposing of waste.

But he said no “artificial cap” would be put on the proportion of electricity to be generated from nuclear power or any other source of “low carbon energy”. Existing nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the UK’s electricity.

Conservative spokesman Alan Duncan welcomed the Government’s commitment to nuclear power.

But he warned: “On no account should there be any kind of subsidy for nuclear power.”

Steve Webb, for the Liberal Democrats, attacked the decision, warning the country faced being locked into a technology “for the best part of a century, when other technologies like carbon capture and storage, like renewables, are evolving practically every day”.

He added: “I can’t decide whether new nuclear is a white elephant or a red herring. But very clearly what it isn’t is the answer to the energy problems we face today.”

Legal challenge

Ministers say a decision on nuclear power is necessary now, as many nuclear and coal-fired power stations are due to close within 20 years.

The nuclear industry believes it can get the first new plant on-stream by 2017.

The government is also publishing an Energy Bill designed to reduce carbon emissions and secure the UK’s power supplies.

But its nuclear plans could be still be subject to a legal challenge from Greenpeace, which successfully challenged an earlier government review backing nuclear power in the High Court.

It claims research shows that even 10 new reactors would cut the UK’s carbon emissions by only about 4% some time after 2025.

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: “This is bad news for Britain’s energy security and bad news for our efforts to beat climate change.”

Although energy policy is not devolved, Scottish ministers have control of the planning system and also have to give consent under the Electricity Act to the construction of new power stations above a certain size.

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is “no chance” of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.

But Mr Hutton he believed the Scottish government was making a “mistake” by ruling out nuclear and it was “entirely possible” that Scottish consumers would rely on electricity generated in England in the future.

[click here to view original article…]

A new generation of nuclear power stations is expected to get the formal go-ahead from the government later.

The cabinet backs the move in principle, and Business Secretary John Hutton is to make a statement to MPs.

Gordon Brown said on Wednesday the UK needed a more independent power supply, but critics say new stations will be expensive, dirty and dangerous.

Existing nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the UK’s electricity, but most are due to close by 2023.

Mr Hutton will make a statement to the House of Commons on the future of nuclear power at 1130 GMT.

A new generation of nuclear power stations is expected to get the formal go-ahead from the government later.

The cabinet backs the move in principle, and Business Secretary John Hutton is to make a statement to MPs.

Gordon Brown said on Wednesday the UK needed a more independent power supply, but critics say new stations will be expensive, dirty and dangerous.

Existing nuclear power stations produce about 20% of the UK’s electricity, but most are due to close by 2023.

Mr Hutton will make a statement to the House of Commons on the future of nuclear power at 1130 GMT.

The government will also publish an Energy Bill designed to reduce carbon emissions and secure the UK’s power supplies.

Mr Brown said on Wednesday ministers were also looking at how to use more renewable energy sources.

Back in 2006, the then prime minister Tony Blair said new nuclear stations should be built to reduce carbon emissions and Britain’s reliance on foreign oil and gas imports.

But that decision was put on hold after a High Court judged ruled the consultation part of the initial energy review was “seriously flawed”, following a challenge by Greenpeace.

A second consultation finished in October but that has also been criticised - Greenpeace says its lawyers will be examining the government’s statement.

The campaign group claims research shows that even 10 new reactors would cut the UK’s carbon emissions by only about 4% some time after 2025.

“Going for nuclear allows politicians like Gordon Brown to project the impression that they are taking difficult decisions to solve difficult problems when they are doing nothing of the sort,” said Greenpeace’s executive director John Sauven.

Environmental campaigners are also concerned that a concentration on nuclear power will deflect attention and funding from development of renewable energy and “carbon capture” projects.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the government’s decision to push ahead with nuclear power was “irrational and unfortunate”.

“Climate change is the biggest threat the planet faces. If the Government is serious about tackling it we must stop tinkering in the margins put in place strong policies to support renewable energy,” he said.

Meanwhile, Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas said the government’s “love affair with nuclear” was “a dangerous, irresponsible and costly distraction from the real challenge of tackling climate change”.

Malcolm Grimston, of the Royal Institute For International Affairs, said the time had come for the government to make a decision.

“It’s a very tight timescale now. We’ve spent an awful long time discussing this, we had a white paper in 2003 on this, we had another white paper last year.

“We’ve run the consultation twice now. It really is time that some of these decisions were taken.”

Professor Bill Banks, deputy president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said he was concerned about finding the necessary expertise to handle the nuclear technology.

“It’s all right saying that we’re going to build several nuclear power stations but where is the expertise going to come from?

“It’s not sitting there, waiting to be tapped at the moment. It’ll take several years before the skills base is there among the younger generation for the building of these stations.”

The Conservative Party backs nuclear power but says it should go ahead without subsidy, the Liberal Democrats reject its use because of the risk of accidents and what they describe as “the long-term legacy of waste”.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: “The government must be honest about how much it will cost to build and run new nuclear power stations and who is going to pick up the bill.”

But Dougie Rooney of the Unite union called for “a bold vision with clear deadlines to enable companies to plan for new nuclear reactors”.

He said, with the right support, the first new nuclear reactor could be built and generating electricity by 2018.

Although energy policy is not devolved, Scottish ministers have control of the planning system and also have to give consent under the Electricity Act to the construction of new power stations above a certain size.

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has said there is “no chance” of more nuclear power stations being built in Scotland.

[click here to view original article…]

Chancellor Alistair Darling has asked to meet the energy regulator Ofgem to discuss last week’s gas and electricity price rises by Npower.

In a letter to Ofgem, Mr Darling said he wanted to review the reasons behind the price rises and their implications.

Npower, which has increased average gas prices by 17.2% and electricity by 12.7%, expects rivals to follow suit.

The company, the UK’s fourth-largest energy supplier, blamed the price rises on soaring wholesale costs.

Wholesale energy prices have risen by 66% for electricity and 60% for gas since last year, said Npower, which has four million UK customers.

In the letter to Ofgem, Mr Darling wrote: “I would be interested in receiving your assessment of gas and electricity supply and market conditions both in the UK and Europe and likely future trends.

“I would be particularly interested in your views on the relationship between wholesale price movements and feed-through to domestic retail prices.”

Analysts say wholesale gas prices have risen on the back of the record cost of oil, as any increase in the price of crude has a knock-on effect on gas.

Wholesale gas prices in the UK are also said to have been driven higher by the growing number of energy firms on the continent turning to the more liberalised UK market for cheaper supplies.

[click here to view original article…]

The switch to energy-saving light bulbs may put thousands at risk of painful skin reactions, health charities warn.

Fluorescent bulbs can exacerbate skin rashes in people with photosensitive skin conditions, experts said.

The government is planning to prevent the sale of conventional bulbs by 2011 to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Several groups including the British Association of Dermatologists called for exemptions to allow those affected to continue using traditional bulbs.

But representatives of the lighting industry said there would be alternatives to fluorescent lighting available.

Health conditions which can involve some form of light sensitivity, include the auto-immune disease lupus, the genetic disorder Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP), certain forms of eczema and dermatitis, photosensitivity, and porphyria.

It has been estimated about 100,000 people in the UK with these skin conditions will be affected.

Spectrum - an alliance of charities that support people with light sensitive conditions - says they have also been contacted with people suffering from ME who have had bad reactions to fluorescent light.

Other groups have warned that low-energy bulbs, which use approximately a quarter of the energy of conventional bulbs, cause migraines and increase the risk of seizures in people with epilepsy.

Phase-out

Conventional or “incandescent” bulbs are being phased out in a voluntary agreement with retailers and will no longer be on sale from December 2011.

Campaigners want people who have light sensitive conditions to be able to continue to buy conventional bulbs for their homes.

They warned that employers must also be able to purchase incandescent lighting as employees have a right to such adjustments under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Andrew Langford, chief executive officer of the Skin Care Campaign, one of the charities involved, said: “Incandescent light bulbs are the only source of electric light for many thousands of people with light sensitive conditions.

“Add to this the thousands of people whose conditions or treatments may secondarily cause them to be light sensitive, and you have a large number of people potentially being isolated in the dark.

“We certainly don’t want to say no to greener bulbs just that other bulbs need to be available.

“It’s hard for people to understand what it’s like to live with one of these conditions.”

He also called for a government-funded study into the effects of fluorescent lighting on photosensitive conditions as little research had been done to date.

“We have the anecdotal information - it’s a shame people don’t listen to those affected.

Dr Colin Holden, President of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: “It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don’t exacerbate their condition.

“It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can’t venture out in natural sunlight.”

Kevin Verdun, chief executive of the lighting association said only two-thirds of incandescent bulbs were being phased out.

“These things have been taken into consideration and there will be bulbs they can still use.

“There are also halogen bulbs and LED bulbs coming in in the next two or three years.”

[click here to view original article…]

The Environment Agency has called for more information to be made available on the health and environmental risks posed by low-energy light bulbs.

It says because the bulbs contain small amounts of mercury, more information about safe recycling is needed.

It also wants health warnings printed on packaging and information on how to clear up smashed bulbs in the home.

But a toxicologist has played down the risks, saying several bulbs would have to be smashed at once to pose a danger.

Environmental scientist Dr David Spurgeon said: “Because these light bulbs contain small amounts of mercury they could cause a problem if they are disposed of in a normal waste-bin.

“It is possible that the mercury they contain could be released either into the air or from land-fill when they are released into the wider environment.

“That’s a concern, because mercury is a well known toxic substance.”

Official advice from the Department of the Environment states that if a low-energy bulb is smashed, the room needs to be vacated for at least 15 minutes.

A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust.

Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag - which should be taken to the local council for disposal.

However, this advice is not printed on the packaging that low-energy bulbs are sold in.

Toxicologist Dr David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, said about 6-8mg of mercury was present in a typical low-energy bulb, which he described as a “pretty small amount”.

“Mercury accumulates in the body - especially the brain,” he said. “The biggest danger is repeated exposure - a one off exposure is not as potentially dangerous compared to working in a light bulb factory.

“If you smash one bulb then that is not too much of a hazard. However, if you broke five bulbs in a small unventilated room then you might be in short term danger.”

Adrian Harding of the Environment Agency said: “More information does need to be made available by retailers, local authorities and the government to alert people to the best way of dealing with these products when they become waste.”

Louise Molloy from the environment group Greenpeace said that a public information campaign was needed in order to advise people how to dispose of low-energy bulbs safely.

But she added: “Rather than being worried about the mercury these light bulbs contain, the general public should be reassured that using them will actually reduce the amount of mercury overall in our atmosphere.”

The lighting industry and the government say the risk of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs is minimal.

Kevin Verdun of the Lighting Association said: “Fluorescent strips, like the ones used in garages and kitchens, also contain mercury and have been used for many years without poisoning anyone.”

But he said that warnings on how to safely dispose of smashed bulbs “might” be put on packaging in future, if the government and the public demanded it.

This month shops in the UK will begin the process of phasing out traditional tungsten bulbs as part of a government plan to completely replace them by 2011.

Ministers hope that using the more environmentally-friendly bulbs will save at least save 5m tonnes-worth of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

[click here to view original article…]

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil fell more than $1 a barrel on Friday from its $100 lifetime high as gloomy U.S. jobs data heightened concern about a slowdown in the world’s top consumer that could dampen fuel demand.

Equities markets and the U.S. dollar also took a hit after a government report showed the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 5 percent in December — its highest in more than two years.

U.S. crude dropped $1.31 cents from the previous day’s close to $97.87 by 9:52 a.m. EST. London Brent crude slipped 77 cents to $96.83.

“The jobs data is pressuring stock market and may be viewed as another negative sign for the economy, which in the long run will actually hurt oil demand,” said Tom Bentz of BNP Paribas.

Oil’s surge has darkened the economic outlook in the United States, already battered by a housing crisis, and has threatened economic growth in Europe.

Gold and platinum have also hit record highs partly due to the struggling dollar, which makes dollar-denominated assets relatively cheap in other currencies.

Oil marched to $100.09 on Thursday, the second straight day of triple digit prices, after crude stocks in top consumer the United States sank to a three-year low.

Some analysts said OPEC’s reluctance to increase crude supplies despite oil’s break above $100, combined with geopolitical tensions, would keep oil at record levels.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed at its last meeting in December to keep output unchanged. Officials from the group say exporters can do little to tame oil prices and that world markets are well-supplied.

Major consuming nations have no intention of releasing strategic fuel stocks to curb a rally entering its sixth year.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), adviser to industrialized countries, echoed the White House in saying there was no need to release emergency crude.

[click here to view original article…]

SINGAPORE - Oil prices rose slightly Friday from the previous session’s close after setting a record above $100 a barrel overnight on a larger-than-expected drop in U.S. crude stockpiles.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said Thursday that crude inventories fell 4 million barrels last week, more than the 1.7 million barrel decline analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected.

But the large decline wasn’t able to keep oil prices above $100 “likely because the inventory drawdown was at least in part attributed to year-end inventory management by American oil companies,” said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

Light, sweet crude for February delivery added 14 cents to $99.32 a barrel in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by mid-afternoon in Singapore.

The contract had risen 47 cents overnight to $100.09 a barrel, a trading record, before retreating to settle at $99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents.

Crude’s move to $100 a barrel prompted Indonesian officials to announce plans to ask OPEC to boost output to bring down oil prices, Dow Jones reported. While that may be tempting to some Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members, many analysts think high prices will themselves do the trick by cutting demand.

“By the time OPEC meets on Feb. 1, crude oil prices will have softened because the peak winter season demand in the northern hemisphere will be over and typically in the second quarter, pricing is weak so there will be less pressure on OPEC to raise output,” Shum said.

The EIA also said in its weekly report that inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose 600,000 barrels, countering analyst expectations that distillate supplies would fall 600,000 barrels. Supplies of gasoline rose 1.9 million barrels, more than the 1.3 million barrel increase analysts had expected.

Crude supplies at the closely watched Nymex delivery terminal in Cushing, Okla., were unchanged last week at 17.5 million barrels. Falling supplies there are seen as a symptom of a tight market, and those concerns ease when Cushing inventories rise.

Refinery activity rose by 1.3 percent last week to 89.4 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected refinery use to increase by 0.4 percentage point.

Prices have been volatile in recent days due to low holiday week trading volumes. That means some of the price moves, including Thursday’s record, may be exaggerated.

Heating oil futures added 0.31 cent to $2.7222 a gallon while gasoline prices fell 0.2 cent to $2.5394 a gallon.

Natural gas futures gained 5 cents to $7.724 per 1,000 cubic feet.

In London, Brent crude rose 32 cents to $97.92 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.

[click here to view original article…]

The man behind the record rise in oil prices to $100 a barrel was a lone trader, seeking bragging rights and a minute of fame, market watchers say.

A single trader bid up the price by buying a modest lot and then sold it immediately at a loss, they said.

The New York Mercantile Exchange confirmed that US crude oil futures traded just once in triple figures.

But prices have since remained below that historic level and market analysts questioned the validity of the trade.

Vanity trade

Stephen Schork, a former floor trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the editor of an oil market newsletter, said one floor trader bought 1,000 barrels, the smallest amount permitted, and sold it immediately for $99.40 at a $600 loss.

“They absolutely overpaid,” he told Radio Four’s Today Programme.

“He paid $600 for the right to tell his grandchildren that he was the first in the world to buy $100 oil.”

Most trading in energy futures has shifted away from the trading floor and takes place on electronic platforms.

The NYMEX, along with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is one of the last bastions of “open outcry”, where traders use frantic hand signals to trade securities.

In London, open outcry trading still takes place on the London Metal Exchange, where aluminium, copper and zinc are traded.

The supporters of electronic trading claim that it is faster, cheaper, more efficient for users, and less prone to manipulation by market makers.

The dwindling liquidity on the NYMEX trading floor has led to considerable speculation that the exchange will soon shut down the trading floor to cut costs.

[click here to view original article…]

Councillors in Kent have voted in favour of building a coal-fired power station, the UK’s first for 24 years.

Medway Council gave its approval to a planning application by energy company E.ON UK to build two new cleaner coal units at Kingsnorth, near Rochester.

But opponents say the move would be a serious setback to efforts to cut the UK’s carbon emissions, with Greenpeace labelling it “dinosaur technology”.

The final decision on the plan will now be made by the government.

The last coal-fired plant was built in Northern Ireland 24 years ago.

‘Largest polluter’

E.ON says it would demolish an existing power station at the Kingsnorth site and replace it with one that is 20% cleaner.

Paul Golby, chief executive, said the company had made a public commitment to reduce its carbon emissions by half by 2030.

“This particular investment is significantly more efficient than conventional coal plants and that is equivalent to taking about half a million cars off the road,” he told BBC Radio 4.

He added that the new power station would hopefully become the UK’s first clean carbon demonstration plant, with carbon captured from it and stored in depleted oil fields under the North Sea.

But Ben Stuart, the communications director of Greenpeace, accused E.ON of being “the largest polluter in Britain and being reckless in building the power station”.

He said carbon capture and storage was not viable in the first half of the 21st Century and the new plant would emit 8.4 million tonnes of CO2 every year.

“A new generation of coal-fired power stations in the UK beginning with Kingsnorth would quite simply end any hope we have that Britain can meet its long-term climate change targets,” he explained.

Medway Council does not have the power to grant or reject planning permission, but was asked to give its views to the government.

It had received nearly 9,000 objections, more than 8,000 of them in the form of e-mails, postcards and letters in standard Greenpeace wording.

But earlier officers had recommended that the council did not object.

Bob Marshall-Andrews, Labour MP for Medway, said the application was of national and international importance because of its impact on the environment.

E.ON UK says that, if approved, the power station would be up and running by 2012 and would provide enough energy for 1.5m homes.

[click here to view original article…]

Oil prices have eased after trading at $100 a barrel for the first time.

Violence in Nigeria, Algeria and Pakistan, the weak US dollar and the threat of cold weather have all raised prices after the new year break.

US light, sweet crude fell back to $99.30 a barrel in electronic trading, while London Brent crude shed 43 cents to $97.41 a barrel.

US crude touched $100 a barrel in the previous session, beating the previous peak of $99.29 set in November 2007.

Stocks fall

The rise in oil prompted a drop in shares and a surge in gold prices.

The US benchmark stock index, the Dow Jones, closed down 220.9 points, or 1.7%, at 13,044.0.

Asian stocks also fell, with Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index down 480 points to 27,080 by lunch.

There are concerns that the high price of oil will stoke price pressures at a time when many central banks are trying to cut interest rates to stimulate growth.

“It’s going to have a huge impact on overall global inflation,” said Steve Rowles, a commodities strategist with CFC Seymour securities in Hong Kong.

Reserves

Despite oil hitting $100 a barrel, the White House said it would not open up the nation’s emergency crude reserves to bring down prices.

Indonesia’s Opec governor warned on Thursday that oil prices could climb to the $100-$110 level and said the cartel might decide to increase output at its 1 February meeting in Vienna if supply was insufficient

Oil traders were waiting for the release of weekly US petroleum supply data later in the day, and some expected crude futures to rise above the $100-a-barrel level if the government reported crude inventories fell by more than expected, analysts said.

“We’re so close to $100 right now,” said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

“If the US inventory report indeed shows stock draws, and particularly bigger than expected draws, plus a heightening of geopolitical risks and a falling US dollar, all these factors could push pricing beyond $100,” he said.

[click here to view original article…]