Nuclear power links to 'sham' (UK) energy review

[jpak]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1838079,00.html

Key consultants working on the government's controversial energy review, which recommended a new generation of nuclear power stations, have strong links to the nuclear industry, The Observer can reveal.

Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology, formed by the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to handle hundreds of submissions to the review's public consultation earlier this year. The company has sold most of its nuclear businesses, but still has a nuclear waste unit, and senior executives and staff have links to the old authority and other parts of the nuclear industry.

Critics claim objections to nuclear energy were ignored or misrepresented in AEA Technology's report. However, The Observer can reveal that the report found nuclear power got by far the lowest support of 15 energy options. The revelations will add to widespread criticism that the review, published last month, was a 'sham', designed to push through nuclear energy because it was favoured by the Prime Minister.

Dai Davies, the independent MP whose question in the House of Commons forced ministers to reveal the identity of the consultants, said he was not anti-nuclear but was worried the company's industry links would undermine public confidence in the review.

<more>

[bananas]

1. "There was praise, however, ..."

"There was praise, however, for AEA's publication of a summary table of the most-supported low-carbon technologies, which showed that nuclear power was the only one of the 15 to get more opposition than support. The widest support was for wind power, solar and bio-fuels."

[mccoyn]

2. What we need is an energy expert with no ties...

What we need is an experienced energy expert with no ties from previous experience to the energy sector.

Isn't that what this article is saying?

[bananas]

3. "Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology"

"Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology"
"Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology"
"Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology"

[JohnWxy]

4. Other experts "felt their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented"

"Other experts who made submissions said they felt their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented; that there were concerns that ministers allowed only 12 weeks for the consultation; and that it was done before other important studies on nuclear waste and safety regulation were published."