Non-nuclear energy companies

theyellowlizard

Howdy folks.

I'm about to change energy companies, but I wondered if anyone could tell me which UK energy companies DON'T source power from nuclear? I thought there'd be a handy list online somewhere, but I can't find one!

I'm keen to get the best deal I can, but I'm a firm opponent of nuclear power and don't want to use an energy supplier who use nuclear power.

I think Scottish and Southern used to be reasonably good on this (I'm currently with SWALEC, their Welsh subsidiary), but I noticed that their parent company Iberdola are likely to take over nuclear sites shortly after British Energy was sold to EDF.

Any suggestions? Ta.

A_fiend_for_life

Not sure how authoritative this is though I suspect it must be from Ofgem going by the first two paragraphs:

http://www.electricity-guide.org.uk/fuel-mix.html

skelly01

Hi Op, I think you are confused with companies Scottish Power are owned by Iberdrola.
As for non nuclear I am pretty sure that Scottish and Southern are non nuclear generators as are ecotricity.
As for for totally non nuclear, I am not sure that we can be totally free as all electricity is bought from the National Grid and all electricity is fed in to the national grid. IE whether it is wind,coal,gas,nuclear it is all generated and fed to the grid for distribution around the network.

A_fiend_for_life

Might be from here:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Pages/MoreInformation.aspx?docid=16&refer=Sustainability/Environment/REGOs


(I'm having trouble opening pdf's at the moment.)

theyellowlizard

skelly01 wrote: »

I think you are confused with companies Scottish Power are owned by Iberdrola.

Ah, now you mention it, I think that's probably what I've done...!

Silly me. :rolleyes2

Still, it's no bad thing to have a list on here on non-nuclear energy suppliers. You're right re: the national grid, but we can at least make the choice about whether or not to support companies who invest in the right sort of energy.

skelly01

When you look at the energy mix go with the lowest percentage of nuclear mix, you won't go wrong that way. You are right though its good to be able to make an informed decision.

Ste_C

What is wrong with nuclear power? It's clean, efficient, safe and relatively cheap.

skelly01

Cheap - not really it costs billions to build a nuclear power station and billions to de-commision.
Clean - not really there is the legacy with what to do with all the radioactive waste that comes from them. Burying it in concrete bunkers for other generations to worry about is not right. It maybe clean in terms of generating but lets not get confused that it is a clean fuel.
Safe - Yeah until something goes wrong, look at Chernobyl!
Efficient - Yeah probably is compared to coal, gas etc.

A_fiend_for_life

This article is news to me though it has almost certainly been posted before:

http://www.electricity-guide.org.uk/blog-edf-may-sell-uk-electricity-business-158.html

Might put a delay on four nuclear power stations.

jonesjw

Nuclear waste can be safely contained within a container, rather than spread all over the planet like CO2.

Secondly, with all the advances in control systems, catastrophic failure of something as simple as a nuclear station should be basically impossible these days.

Sadly people who no nothing about these subjects will still campaign against nuclear power

Ste_C

skelly01 wrote: »

Cheap - not really it costs billions to build a nuclear power station and billions to de-commision.
Clean - not really there is the legacy with what to do with all the radioactive waste that comes from them. Burying it in concrete bunkers for other generations to worry about is not right. It maybe clean in terms of generating but lets not get confused that it is a clean fuel.
Safe - Yeah until something goes wrong, look at Chernobyl!
Efficient - Yeah probably is compared to coal, gas etc.

I'd have radioactive waste buried in my back garden... Though the challenge of dealing with the waste is the big mark against it I agree.

More people die each year mining coal or gas than they do at nuclear plants. And Chernobyl was a freak disaster which would never be repeated. Lessons have been learned, the technology has changed and a 21st century plant wouldn't allow anything to go wrong on that scale.