Does nuclear count as renewable? Short answer is "no"

For electricity to count as “renewable” in the UK it has to come with a certificate issued by Ofgem. These certificates are called REGOs or Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin.

For an energy source to qualify for this it has to come from a 100% renewable resource. You can’t dig something out of the ground and it has to be carbon neutral. This means that coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear are all not renewable resources. It also means that energy from waste is not counted as renewable because it will almost certainly contain plastics that are made from oils that were dug up from the ground.

We only buy electricity that comes with a REGO. This means that we are definitely 100% renewable.

This is one of the things that made me sign up :slight_smile:

@maryrcrumpton glad to hear it! What else made you sign up, out of interest?

@will a few things really.

One was price - you don’t penalise customers for wanting “green electrons” - most other 100% renewable electricity seems to cost more, when ethically I think it should cost less.

And I like that you are a 100% UK company - that right? And customer services are real people in the UK too.

And a small business - though I realise that won’t last as you seem to be doing things right :wink:

Also, something I read in this forum - I must find the post again, as I can’t recall it exactly, but someone had raised concerns about you using gas that was a product of the meat industry, and one of your guys had commented that to compensate for that you would look at ways to encourage reduction in meat consumption, or words to that effect. Would have to find it again - but it seemed like you were both trying to be an ethical business all round AND also trying to listen and take on board feedback, rather than just paying lip-service to it.

Mary x

@maryrcrumpton Awesome. What a thorough answer!

Yeah we’re 100% UK based, owned, etc. The whole team is based in London and we don’t plan to change that. And no robots either :slight_smile:

Was this the post you were referring to? We definitely to make sure that we listen to our members, so I’m glad that came across well. While we can’t always do everything that our members want, we want to know what those things are so that at least we can try.

So on that note, is there anything that you can think of that we could do better? We definitely want to hear about it. I promise not to be offended :slight_smile:

Will

Well, I’m not even supplied by you yet (end of March apparently) but I will give it some thought and pass on feedback about the process as it proceeds.

I have also left some thoughts in the other thread x

Great stuff.

Yep I saw your other post. It was really useful :slight_smile:

.

Hiya, apologies for reactivating this thread but as a customer, fan and evangelist of Bulb’s positive environmental impact i’d like to understand how Bulb sees the huge issues with renewable raw materials in the supply chain Vs the very light footprint of Nuclear.
Increasing numbers of environmentalists believe Nuclear is much better option to mitigate the impacts of future climate change.

Please can Bulb comment on the below? (NB. please not the last few lines and the video link)

Mining vast quantities of ‘non renewable’ of the rare earth minerals required to make Wind Turbines and Solar Panels is decimating large tracts of our Earth, leaving vast areas of black sludge wasteland, notably in Northern China. Each year substantially more people die in rare events like been struck by lightning (~6000/year) and in plane crashes (~250/yr) than have died from historical Nuclear Power disasters (Chernobyl (54 short term, 4000 long term (WHO/UN data) , Fukushima (<5) so <80/yr over 50 yrs.

~1.8 million people die each year in China due to Air and Water pollution. Mining of rare earth minerals is a significant contributor although the Global (especially Western) demand for consuming plastic and chemical based products and burning coal are the major factors.

Millions of people will die within the next 100 years from climate change because Nuclear is such a political hot potato. It seems like it would solve a lot of issues and it’s risks can easily be mitigated. My gut feel is that a key reason it’s not being pursued is that there is a far lower global consumption footprint and therefore ‘return on investment’ for big business with Nuclear than with renewable.

Many of these issues are succinctly and eloquently summarised in this TED video by a lifetime environmentalist. It also highlights how “Big Oil” stands to benefit from the intermittent nature of Renewables;

“Why renewables can’t save the planet”
https://youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&list=WL&index=2&t=2s

Bump?

Will move this question to facebook, twitter, linkedin etc if it’s not answered here. I think it’s important to feed supporters with knowledge.