Dr.Strangelove has entered the building

Back in 1974, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded: “There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future.” It was the turning point for nuclear power in Britain. Vast expansion plans were abandoned, and only one reactor has been approved and built since.The Independent

The dreams about energy independence lead to expensive policies with no real energy security benefits. The nightmares about “energy wars” reinforce prejudices in China and India about the need for aggressive foreign energy policies – a process that looks like a vicious circle. Energy security risks have probably gone up but have not changed in nature. More money is needed to buy collective insurance. But energy independence is nonsense… The FT

The climate change debate in the UK took another turn last week with the government’s statement that the option of building new nuclear power stations would be taken up. Given a ‘self-evident energy gap’ the decision was made on energy security and environmental grounds. As the quotes above show both parts of this new policy are founded on contentious arguments. Moreover, given the construction lags, nuclear electricity generation will not contribute to reducing emissions or to energy supply in next decade (and thereafter only have a marginal impact on emission reductions).

The twists in the tale are that first the programme is to generate non-subsidised nuclear power — something that has never been achieved before anywhere — and second the government is (apparently) hedging its bets allowing the market to decide wider energy policy outcomes. If the latter is really the case then there are low-carbon alternatives to the nuclear option which may prove to be more cost-effective.

The nuclear industry in the UK has a poor track record: cost overruns, late delivery, and a small contribution to electricity generation at a high cost, without taking into account the large uncertainties and costs in waste management and decommissioning — the Sellafield clean up cost alone is expected be at least £30-40bn; the prospective investors will be encouraged by the government’s commitment to subsidise waste storage costs, and are no doubt expecting additional bailouts later on. The risks of nuclear power may be better understood, but like Concorde only one catastrophic accident turns the safety record upside down: would there be any discussion of reviving the industry had Chernobyl been in the Rhone or Suffolk? Also the industry has had a corrosive effect on civil liberties, an area in which the UK has yet to find a balance between the defence of public interest and acts in the public interest.

The immediate needs are to start making cuts in emissions and to ensure liberalisation not autarky in energy markets.