The youngest Electricity supplier on the Dutch market, Atoomstroom, promotes that its nuclear energy is clean energy, free of CO2 and non-subsidized. According to Greenpeace, this is misleading. Greenpeace submitted a complaint at the Dutch Advertising Code Committee and was partially proved right. Atoomstroom can not longer claim that its energy is clean. This is misleading for consumers, says the Committee. However, the terms “CO2-free” and “non-subsidized" can be used by Atoomstroom.
According to the Committee nuclear energy can not be called clean. With the extraction of uranium and generating the nuclear electricity, radioactive waste is produced. And that makes the use of the term ‘clean energy’ for the product of Atroomstroom misleading.
Atoomstroom is allowed to use the term “CO2-free”. Greenpeace had objected, because in different stages of nuclear energy production CO2 is produced. The Committee rejects the complaint for this part, because the actual generation of nuclear power is CO2 free.
The Committee judges that it is not misleading to promote the energy of Atoomstroom as non-subsidized. Indirect subsidies from the authorities for the insurance of nucleair power centers can not be concerned as being subsidized.
Atoomstroom has already informed to appeal for principal reasons. I am curious what Greenpeace is going to do. To be continued…
Kim Braber
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
The youngest Electricity supplier on the Dutch market, Atoomstroom, promotes that its nuclear energy is clean energy, free of CO2 and non-subsidized. According to Greenpeace, this is misleading. Greenpeace submitted a complaint at the Dutch Advertising Code Committee and was partially proved right. Atoomstroom can not longer claim that its energy is clean. This is misleading for consumers, says the Committee. However, the terms “CO2-free” and “non-subsidized" can be used by Atoomstroom.
According to the Committee nuclear energy can not be called clean. With the extraction of uranium and generating the nuclear electricity, radioactive waste is produced. And that makes the use of the term ‘clean energy’ for the product of Atroomstroom misleading.
Atoomstroom is allowed to use the term “CO2-free”. Greenpeace had objected, because in different stages of nuclear energy production CO2 is produced. The Committee rejects the complaint for this part, because the actual generation of nuclear power is CO2 free.
The Committee judges that it is not misleading to promote the energy of Atoomstroom as non-subsidized. Indirect subsidies from the authorities for the insurance of nucleair power centers can not be concerned as being subsidized.
Atoomstroom has already informed to appeal for principal reasons. I am curious what Greenpeace is going to do. To be continued…
Kim Braber