February 2008
The Nuclear Option
The New Year saw new fissures created between the government and environmental lobby as Business Secretary John Hutton, formally announced backing for a new generation of nuclear power stations to be sited across the United Kingdom.
Mr Hutton stated that nuclear power would provide a "safe and affordable" way to secure the country’s power needs when energy security is set to become a major political and strategic concern in the future. He also lauded the green credentials of nuclear plants, telling MPs that "every new nuclear power station will save the same amount of carbon emissions that are generated from around one million households." The proposals received unanimous cabinet backing, with the Prime Minister calling the willingness to "take tough long-term decisions… a fundamental precondition of preparing Britain for the new world."
It was also made clear that any reactors being built would not be publicly subsidised, and the financial burden and rewards would fall upon private individuals. However, the government would not rule out funding in case of "an emergency" at a nuclear plant, leaving critics furious that public funds may have to once again be used to rescue private folly. Indeed, although it has been emphatically stated by the Prime Minister that private individuals would bear the cost of waste disposal, a Defra spokeswoman let slip that land polluted by a "nuclear occurrence" would render the Environmental Secretary liable to foot the bill under the Radioactive Contaminated Land Regulations Act of 2007. And it is reported that "the small print of a proposed amendment makes clear that the Government - under pressure from the European Commission – has had to step in because commercial insurance would have been prohibitively expensive."
Currently, power generated from nuclear sources account for about 20% of the UK’s electricity, but with every nuclear reactor in the country (with the exception of Sizewell B) expected to close by 2023, not only will the country struggle to keep up with the growing demand for energy, the new reactors would be a necessity to plug the expected power deficit. Industry figures have mooted that about 20 reactors could be seen over the coming decade, with an estimated time frame of 10 years from approval and commissioning to completed construction.
Vehemently opposed to what many consider "a nuclear option" to address energy security and global warming issues, critics have attacked the government on two fronts. Primarily, safety concerns over accidents, waste disposal, costs and terrorist attacks have been fielded as substantive issues, with the environmental lobby particularly infuriated that an approach akin to "robbing Peter to pay Paul" has been taken. Not only will money be diverted from projects such as wind farms, but the pollution created by fossil fuel burning power stations has been replaced by nuclear waste, which takes millions of pounds and thousands of years to dispose. This is to say nothing of the aforementioned human and economic cost of a "nuclear occurrence."
But if one was to put a price on compensating people burdened with nuclear waste in their area, experts opine that £1bn would be a reasonable figure. In fact, a recent report in The Times indicated that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield and operates the nation’s radioactive waste disposal programme, has agreed a preliminary £75m deal to extend existing dumping facilities in Cumbria alone.
The second element of the critics’ disquiet is a procedural issue, but one which they feel masks an underlying dishonesty in the government’s energy policy. Following its earlier court victory against the government over a "flawed and in some respects seriously misleading" first consultation on the nuclear question, Greenpeace are looking into rebutting a second round consultation that they feel would "unlawfully" approve a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The idea that the process was fair and open has been severely damaged by Mr Brown’s statement to MPs in July that "we have made the decision to continue with nuclear power… by building a new generation of nuclear power stations." Such an unequivocal statement in advance of the reports findings does little to reassure commentators as to the veracity of the review. And despite the fact of academic unease "that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers," the powers that be are expected to claim that they have a mandate from other sources. Apparently, in meetings in the autumn, more than 1,000 people were asked their view of nuclear power after seeing videos and taking part in discussion: 44% said power firms should have the option to build nuclear plants; 36% said no. Whether or not this may be classified as a ringing endorsement or a substitute for the democratic process is now something that the courts may have to decide.
Print this page