Why nuclear is too large to fail14: 05 22/03/2010, Simon Hughes, carbon emissions, climate change, comment, conservatives, energy, energy efficiency,

Why nuclear is too large to fail14: 05 22/03/2010, Simon Hughes, carbon emissions, climate change, comment, conservatives, energy, energy efficiency, environmental, ethical and fossil fuels green life, green politics, guardian.co. UK nuclear energy policy, renewable energy, Guardian Unlimited

Nuclear energy is where energy policy is conservative: the credibility confused, incoherent and lacking in


Conservatives launch "energy policy in July 2006, David Cameron, made a convincing and well reasoned argument about why nuclear power should be a" last resort. "That same year, described the thrill of working on nuclear energy as" irresponsible. "As Cameron rightly pointed out:" The problems of nuclear waste have not been addressed. They must be treated so that the new investment possible. "


Four years later, we are no closer to finding a way to treat highly toxic nuclear waste and the Conservative leader is the strongest point ever. But unfortunately, conservatives no longer seems to care. In fact, the Conservatives' Green Paper on energy security, new shows remarkable skill in rewriting history, now criticize the Labor government of dragging its feet before finally changing to support new nuclear.


This political journey perfectly embodies the new energy policy of the Conservatives: the credibility confusing, inconsistent and lacking. Nuclear power has always required large amounts of public money and the sign of David Cameron, the Conservatives are prepared to use taxpayers risk billions in profit from the taps that simply can not afford. Both the work and the Conservatives say they do not provide any public subsidy, but we both know that this can not be true when the nuclear industry, which has never been able to survive without him.


Like banks, new nuclear plants is too big to fail. And as banks, depends on a new nuclear guarantee taxpayers more or less explicitly. Once a nuclear plant is in operation continue in the next 40 years, whatever happens. No responsible government would never allow nuclear power generator broke. This has happened before, when the taxpayer had to bail out British Energy, 10 billion euros and accept 73bn of liabilities. As my colleague, Vince Cable, said, nuclear energy is the Royal Bank of Scotland, the energy industry.


Much has been talked about energy security. This is the case that a large part of our generating capacity coming offline in the near future, which leaves us with the possibility of an energy deficit. If nothing is done now we'll start to see an energy deficit emerge around 2016. It is something that politicians of all parties must take seriously. It is also another reason why we can not rely on nuclear power.


A nuclear reactor takes seven years to build. Reactor designs that have been proposed by the energy companies have not yet been taken and the Health and Safety has already said it will require a major redesign. The royalists are at least a decade away from nuclear energy again in the UK.


The only way to guarantee energy supply clean and safe is to invest in renewable energy as it can go online today. Cameron says he wants this too, but this is where the Tory energy policy falls. Nuclear power - large, expensive buildings and is the antithesis of a free energy market and fair, based on renewable energy.


The construction of a new generation of nuclear power may be exhausted all investments in alternative energy sources. Nuclear power costs an incredible amount of money. The government estimates that a new reactor will cost £ 3 billion, but the latest offerings of companies to build the reactors of the same in other countries are almost double. A program of 10 reactors, as proposed by the government, (and Cameron has said he wants no limit on the number), will cost at least £ 60 billion in initial costs. This is the capital that could be used to invest in renewable energy.


Of course, the economics of nuclear energy are only part of the problem. There are also large and difficult to many problems associated with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is produced by the new generation of reactors will be hotter and more radioactive than the last generation. You will have to be stored on site for 160 years and will remain radioactive for 30,000 next. After 40 years of civil nuclear power in this country still have no safe means of disposing of it. It is an environmental disaster.


The potential of nuclear power to divert resources from renewable energy, and the dangerous legacy of highly toxic radioactive waste, means that serious environmentalists can not support a broad program of nuclear energy, and indeed any group of important environmental campaign make.


The Conservative Party, which only a few years became a new champion of environmental causes, when necessary to improve its image, now has to be green and serious, like a hot stone in the run up to elections. This is a frightening sign of what now represents a conservative change.


For a real change, a change that works for the British economy in a fair and green and healthy, is the Liberal Democrats.


Simon Hughes is the Liberal Democrats' Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Nuclear power
Energy
Energy efficiency
Fossil fuels
Renewable energy
Carbon emissions
Green politics
Conservatives
Climate change
Ethics and Sustainable
Simon Hughes


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News