This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/lib-dems-nuclear-power

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Lib Dems are wrong on nuclear power – the arguments don't add up The Lib Dems are wrong on nuclear power – the arguments don't add up
(1 day later)
Change is the normal state of politics, particularly in these economically and environmentally turbulent days, but we've just seen a pair of turnarounds that a few years ago would have seemed impossible.Change is the normal state of politics, particularly in these economically and environmentally turbulent days, but we've just seen a pair of turnarounds that a few years ago would have seemed impossible.
The Liberal Democrat party, once one of the champions of opposition to nuclear power and weapons, has just voted at its conference to accept the "limited" use of nuclear power plants. This came as Japan, once a world champion of the technology, prepared to switch off its last operating nuclear power plant. This reflects what is happening elsewhere around the developed world: Germany has promised to phase it out by 2022; in the US you "can't even come close to making the maths work on building new nuclear plants"; even France, with its remarkably relaxed attitude towards nuclear risks (a cause of concern for its neighbours) is planning a partial phase-out of nuclear power, closing 24 reactors by 2025. So why is Britain heading in a radically different direction to the rest of the developed world?The Liberal Democrat party, once one of the champions of opposition to nuclear power and weapons, has just voted at its conference to accept the "limited" use of nuclear power plants. This came as Japan, once a world champion of the technology, prepared to switch off its last operating nuclear power plant. This reflects what is happening elsewhere around the developed world: Germany has promised to phase it out by 2022; in the US you "can't even come close to making the maths work on building new nuclear plants"; even France, with its remarkably relaxed attitude towards nuclear risks (a cause of concern for its neighbours) is planning a partial phase-out of nuclear power, closing 24 reactors by 2025. So why is Britain heading in a radically different direction to the rest of the developed world?
There's one argument that we can dismiss quickly. Yes, this government did pledge to be the "greenest government ever", but surely even its greatest fan couldn't continue to make that claim with a straight face, when they are spending not a penny on insulating our leaky, expensive-to-heat homes, when they are refusing to include "decarbonisation by 2030" in the energy bill, despite widespread support not just from green campaigners but also the business community. So it's not that Britain's government is "greener" than all the others.There's one argument that we can dismiss quickly. Yes, this government did pledge to be the "greenest government ever", but surely even its greatest fan couldn't continue to make that claim with a straight face, when they are spending not a penny on insulating our leaky, expensive-to-heat homes, when they are refusing to include "decarbonisation by 2030" in the energy bill, despite widespread support not just from green campaigners but also the business community. So it's not that Britain's government is "greener" than all the others.
Is it because we have a confused, directionless energy policy that's marked by inaction, confusion and the lack of an evidence base? Well that's probably part of the explanation. A large, mass-generating nuclear plant looks like a comfortingly solid solution to a hole – a large lump of concrete in the dyke.Is it because we have a confused, directionless energy policy that's marked by inaction, confusion and the lack of an evidence base? Well that's probably part of the explanation. A large, mass-generating nuclear plant looks like a comfortingly solid solution to a hole – a large lump of concrete in the dyke.
Is it because the nuclear industry still has a lot of cash, a lot of lobbying power (as does the oil and gas industry with fracking), unlike the alternatives – energy conservation and renewable energy? We're definitely on to something there – this is a government that's remarkably prone to sway before the push of a well-funded lobbying campaign – whether it's on plain cigarette packets, alcohol minimum pricing or banking regulation.Is it because the nuclear industry still has a lot of cash, a lot of lobbying power (as does the oil and gas industry with fracking), unlike the alternatives – energy conservation and renewable energy? We're definitely on to something there – this is a government that's remarkably prone to sway before the push of a well-funded lobbying campaign – whether it's on plain cigarette packets, alcohol minimum pricing or banking regulation.
Yet it's really quite simple to dismiss the arguments for nuclear. There are the traditional arguments of the green movement: safety and waste. Britain is a physically small country, as is Japan, where the Fukushima crisis is far from under control and some areas will be left uninhabitable for decades. The thought of a similar scenario, however unlikely it might be claimed to be, at Hinkley, with Cardiff, Bristol and many more population centres in close proximity doesn't bear thinking about – but does have to be considered.Yet it's really quite simple to dismiss the arguments for nuclear. There are the traditional arguments of the green movement: safety and waste. Britain is a physically small country, as is Japan, where the Fukushima crisis is far from under control and some areas will be left uninhabitable for decades. The thought of a similar scenario, however unlikely it might be claimed to be, at Hinkley, with Cardiff, Bristol and many more population centres in close proximity doesn't bear thinking about – but does have to be considered.
Fukushima became far worse than it might have been because the waste was stored on site for want of an alternative solution. We have no waste solution in Britain. The government is attempting to twist the planning system to try again for Cumbria – but the fact is that part of the reason why the county council stepped back from offering long-term storage was expert advice that the geology is unsuitable. The government might be able to change the planning system, it can't change the geology.Fukushima became far worse than it might have been because the waste was stored on site for want of an alternative solution. We have no waste solution in Britain. The government is attempting to twist the planning system to try again for Cumbria – but the fact is that part of the reason why the county council stepped back from offering long-term storage was expert advice that the geology is unsuitable. The government might be able to change the planning system, it can't change the geology.
However, safety and waste are long-running arguments on which people often have fixed views unlikely to be shifted.However, safety and waste are long-running arguments on which people often have fixed views unlikely to be shifted.
But we don't need them to rule out nuclear. We can simply look to two issues – cost and timescales.But we don't need them to rule out nuclear. We can simply look to two issues – cost and timescales.
The fact that the Hinkley C plant project has stalled is entirely due to cost issues. Nuclear is now simply prohibitively expensive when compared to renewable alternatives. Going nuclear means, in a nation already struggling with a massive burden of fuel poverty, more expensive consumer bills in future even at the same level of carbon emissions.The fact that the Hinkley C plant project has stalled is entirely due to cost issues. Nuclear is now simply prohibitively expensive when compared to renewable alternatives. Going nuclear means, in a nation already struggling with a massive burden of fuel poverty, more expensive consumer bills in future even at the same level of carbon emissions.
The other is timing: the last two plants like that planned at Hinkley C have taken respectively 14 years to build and 17 years to bring online. We do have to take large-scale, committed action to cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change. But we have to take it now to make a significant impact. Nuclear is too slow and would arrive too late.The other is timing: the last two plants like that planned at Hinkley C have taken respectively 14 years to build and 17 years to bring online. We do have to take large-scale, committed action to cut carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change. But we have to take it now to make a significant impact. Nuclear is too slow and would arrive too late.
So the arguments for nuclear don't stack up. There's some explanation for why the government still has it as policy, but it remains puzzling that Liberal Democrat party policy should have been changed to back it, reversing one of its trademark stances. Perhaps all we can see as an explanation is that this is no longer the same party that its activists, members, and voters, have known over the years.So the arguments for nuclear don't stack up. There's some explanation for why the government still has it as policy, but it remains puzzling that Liberal Democrat party policy should have been changed to back it, reversing one of its trademark stances. Perhaps all we can see as an explanation is that this is no longer the same party that its activists, members, and voters, have known over the years.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.