Today's most viewed
| NEWS |  | | | | | OXFORD UNITED | | | | EATING OUT | | | | CRICKET | | | | | | NEWS | | |
|
|
|
Greenpeace protesters defend action
 |
| Defence: Paul Mellett and fellow protesters |
TWENTY-five environmental protesters who squatted at Didcot power station were yesterday fined almost £5,000 - but said it was worth it.
The Greenpeace campaigners, including 27-year-old Paul Mellett of Oxford, all pleaded guilty to aggravated trespass in relation to the two-day demonstration last November.
They occupied part of the power station and painted 'Blair's Legacy' down the main 650ft stack before surrendering to police.
Didcot magistrates ordered them to pay between £100 and £300 each - a total of £4,850, plus £300 costs.
The demonstration cost RWE npower an estimated £690,000 by disrupting power generation at the coal-fired Didcot A part of the plant.
RWE npower is considering civil action to recover its costs.
Despite pleading guilty, Greenpeace director Blake Harwood read out a statement in court defending his actions as "reasonable".
He said: "I don't believe I will ever have to apologise to my children and my grandchildren for my actions."
One group of campaigners climbed to the top of the chimney, while a second group climbed on to a coal conveyor belt system, 60ft above the ground, after switching off the machinery.
Oxford resident Paul Mellett, of Southview, Binsey, said that he thought it was worth getting a criminal conviction to spread Green- peace's message about energy wastage. The solar panel fitter said: "Two-thirds of the power generated at Didcot is wasted. We've only got ten years to turn this thing around. It will be catastrophic if we don't."
Leon Flexman, of RWE npower, said of the court case: "It isn't something that gives me any pleasure. We support Greenpeace's right to have a point of view but what they did was dangerous."
Those convicted were: Emily Armistead, 31, of London, Mark Bateman, 50, Liverpool, Stephen Baker, 60, London, Richard Carlson, 35, London, Richard Claxton, 40, Pocklington, Yorkshire, Nicholas Cobbing, 39, London, Keith Dawson, 34, Stamford, Lincolnshire, Katherine Davison, 36, Surbiton, Fabrizio Grassi, 31, London, Blake Harwood, 44, London, Simon Hackin, 41, Edinburgh, Lisa Kamphausen, 23, Edinburgh, Oliver Knowles, 31, London, Jens Loewe, 38, London, Paul Mellett, 27, Oxford, Janet Miller, 51, Buxton, Abigail Pound, 27, Manchester, Shaun Qureshi, 35, Essex, Darren Shirley, 26, Basingstoke, Ben Stewart, 33, London, Rebecca Sumner, 32, Stoke Newington, Christopher Suttie, 32, London, Andrew Taylor, 37, Stroud, Gloucestershire, Jacqueline Westwood, 49, Swinton, Huw Williams, 39, Nottingham.
8:35am Saturday 14th April 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Kit, Oxford on 11:10am Sat 14 Apr 07
I'm sure those of us who pay our electricity bills will enjoy having to find the extra £690,000 to fund this foolish and petulant demonstration. Everyone has the right to protest but a line has to be drawn when it costs so much - it is us hoi polloi that foot the bill!
I'm sure those of us who pay our electricity bills will enjoy having to find the extra £690,000 to fund this foolish and petulant demonstration. Everyone has the right to protest but a line has to be drawn when it costs so much - it is us hoi polloi that foot the bill!
Posted by: Ed, Oxford on 12:15pm Sat 14 Apr 07
Well something has to be done. NPower etc just care about giving their shareholders a good return. The fact that Didcot A is the second most polluting power station in GB (after Drax) cannot be ignored. The waste ash will fill the lake..then where is the rest going to go? Unless we do something we are in deep, deep trouble.
Well something has to be done. NPower etc just care about giving their shareholders a good return. The fact that Didcot A is the second most polluting power station in GB (after Drax) cannot be ignored. The waste ash will fill the lake..then where is the rest going to go? Unless we do something we are in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by: Kerry Dunk, Didcot on 7:02pm Sat 14 Apr 07
[quote]We've only got ten years to turn this thing around. It will be catastrophic if we don't."[/quote]
Well considering Didcot A has a lifetime of less than 10 years left, having been replaced in advance by the new and cleaner Didcot B, that was well worth the £690k now to be passed onto us bill payers.
Er, preaching to the converted??
We've only got ten years to turn this thing around. It will be catastrophic if we don't."
Well considering Didcot A has a lifetime of less than 10 years left, having been replaced in advance by the new and cleaner Didcot B, that was well worth the £690k now to be passed onto us bill payers.
Er, preaching to the converted??
Posted by: bob on 9:53am Sun 15 Apr 07
I hope they all cycled there!
What on earth was that protest going to gain?
Like a load of bored kids with nothing better to do than cause trouble!
I hope they all cycled there!
What on earth was that protest going to gain?
Like a load of bored kids with nothing better to do than cause trouble!
Posted by: steven on 10:02am Tue 17 Apr 07
The irony is most of them probably get their electricity from non environmental means without knowing. It is impossible to live a life today 100% environmentally friendly unless you go and live in a cave. Look at the toxin's that go into the batterys and energy saving bulbs that are "Enviromentally friendly"
The irony is most of them probably get their electricity from non environmental means without knowing. It is impossible to live a life today 100% environmentally friendly unless you go and live in a cave. Look at the toxin's that go into the batterys and energy saving bulbs that are "Enviromentally friendly"
Posted by: Steve, London on 12:55pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Good to see that at least someone takes global warming seriously, and is prepared to take a stand. Didcot (A -and- B) have to be closed down a lot sooner than 10 years, along woth all the other coal stations, if our grandchildren are going to have a chance in life.
Good to see that at least someone takes global warming seriously, and is prepared to take a stand. Didcot (A -and- B) have to be closed down a lot sooner than 10 years, along woth all the other coal stations, if our grandchildren are going to have a chance in life.
Posted by: Paulo, Oxford on 11:37am Fri 20 Apr 07
The action was not about "shutting down Didcot" as many peole seem to think. It was taken as a part of the wider campaign against the building of many new coal fired power stations, which the government is proposing. These will be based on a similar technology, where 2/3 of the primary energy gained from burning the coal is wasted as heat, dissipated up the cooling towers. People concerned about climate change feel that if we are to burn fossil fuels in the transition to renewables, we should at least burn them in combined heat and power plants where all the heat is drawn off and used to heat buildings. This way at least we are getting the maximum possible yield from all that CO2 emitted.
The £690 000 cost is NPower's estimate and is very much in dispute, and this cost will not be passed on to the consumer. Also, if you are that worried about it, switch to a green energy supplier who only buys from renewable generators, and then there is no possibility of it being passed on.
Didcot A could have switched over to burning cleaner natural gas at any point, so there was no risk of interrupting supply. They choose not to because it is cheaper (due to government subsidies) to burn Russian, Chinese and Australian coal that is shipped half way round the world, also causing massive CO2 emissions. This is what we mean when we talk about waste - it is crazy.
Meanwhile, only 3 windfarms were granted planning permission in the whole of the UK last year, including off shore wind. Are we serious about tackling climate change? We talk a lot, but dont do very much, and we are running out of time. My sincere best wishes to you all.
The action was not about "shutting down Didcot" as many peole seem to think. It was taken as a part of the wider campaign against the building of many new coal fired power stations, which the government is proposing. These will be based on a similar technology, where 2/3 of the primary energy gained from burning the coal is wasted as heat, dissipated up the cooling towers. People concerned about climate change feel that if we are to burn fossil fuels in the transition to renewables, we should at least burn them in combined heat and power plants where all the heat is drawn off and used to heat buildings. This way at least we are getting the maximum possible yield from all that CO2 emitted.
The £690 000 cost is NPower's estimate and is very much in dispute, and this cost will not be passed on to the consumer. Also, if you are that worried about it, switch to a green energy supplier who only buys from renewable generators, and then there is no possibility of it being passed on.
Didcot A could have switched over to burning cleaner natural gas at any point, so there was no risk of interrupting supply. They choose not to because it is cheaper (due to government subsidies) to burn Russian, Chinese and Australian coal that is shipped half way round the world, also causing massive CO2 emissions. This is what we mean when we talk about waste - it is crazy.
Meanwhile, only 3 windfarms were granted planning permission in the whole of the UK last year, including off shore wind. Are we serious about tackling climate change? We talk a lot, but dont do very much, and we are running out of time. My sincere best wishes to you all.
Posted by: Paulo, Oxford on 11:54am Fri 20 Apr 07
[quote][bold]bob[/bold] wrote:
I hope they all cycled there!
What on earth was that protest going to gain?
Like a load of bored kids with nothing better to do than cause trouble![/quote] If you would like to know what the aims of the protest were, please watch the video clip and listen to the audio from the action on the GP website: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/didcot-power-station-greenpeace-occupation-ends
bob wrote:
I hope they all cycled there!
What on earth was that protest going to gain?
Like a load of bored kids with nothing better to do than cause trouble!
If you would like to know what the aims of the protest were, please watch the video clip and listen to the audio from the action on the GP website: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/didcot-power-station-greenpeace-occupation-ends
Posted by: Lakesaver on 7:24pm Sat 21 Apr 07
And don't forget the ash that comes out of Didcot - they are proposing to trash a county wildlife site because they have burnt more coal than ever before - it is cheap and is mined in countries who don't have our ethical mores about employment law. Nor do the people who mine the coal care about tipping people off their land to get at the coal. The vast amount of energy at Didcot goes straight up their chimneys - it is about time they got their act together and stopped paying lip service to the environment.
And don't forget the ash that comes out of Didcot - they are proposing to trash a county wildlife site because they have burnt more coal than ever before - it is cheap and is mined in countries who don't have our ethical mores about employment law. Nor do the people who mine the coal care about tipping people off their land to get at the coal. The vast amount of energy at Didcot goes straight up their chimneys - it is about time they got their act together and stopped paying lip service to the environment.
Posted by: Captain Sensible on 10:42pm Sat 28 Jul 07
And building wind power stationsis going to substitute for thermal power generation?
Get real. Germany, with 18,500 + wind turbines is building 26 new coal-fired power stations because wind is not delivering.
Nor is wind going to substitute for nuclear base-load power generation: [quote]"It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,"[/quote] ('Wind Power in the UK', Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).
And building wind power stationsis going to substitute for thermal power generation?
Get real. Germany, with 18,500 + wind turbines is building 26 new coal-fired power stations because wind is not delivering.
Nor is wind going to substitute for nuclear base-load power generation:
"It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,"
('Wind Power in the UK', Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
