Polly Toynbee, The Guardian Today Online 12 Jan 08;
A looming energy crisis has forced Britain to announce an aggressive nuclear energy policy, with the construction of up to 10 nuclear power stations by 2020.
Marking the new political year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised to take "the difficult long-term decisions, even if at times it may be easier to do simpler or less difficult things".
Going nuclear is a big decision and a difficult one but that does not necessarily make it the right one.
In fact, the government chose the easier option — and it is easy to see why.
The nuclear cause has been on a roll as Labour and Conservatives have felt the sheer grinding pressure of the nuclear industry, the engineering institutes and a host of powerful interests.
Back in 1997, the nuclearists were losing the argument but now they have turned nuclear into the grown-up choice, the one serious men agree is the must-have ingredient in the "energy mix".
This must rank as one of the great public relations triumphs of all time.
What genius masterminded its selling to the very same government that picked up the still-rising £5.3 billion ($14.8 billion) bill for the gigantic failure of British Energy?
The cost of storing nuclear waste and decommissioning decaying stations will be about £70 billion.
This is like a conned householder buying another new roof from the same cowboy who destroyed the last one.
No voice in Cabinet queried this decision — and it is easy to see why.
Under heavy bombardment from both sides, it takes time to wade through detailed arguments. How are ordinary politicians (or journalists) to know which group of distinguished professors bearing statistics is right?
Thus, momentous decisions are made.
After Iraq, it might be hoped that ministers and Conservatives had learned lessons about not always trusting the establishment view.
But most people are in the same situation: How can we know? Reading through submissions on both sides, what becomes plain is that no one can know.
Nuclear power certainly feels safer than it did, with so many reactors around the world and only one deadly accident in the dysfunctional Soviet Union.
No one denies that nuclear is better than boiling the planet alive, if that was the choice. But it is not.
The politicians had to choose which low-carbon energy would be best and cheapest. In the end they ducked choosing by declaring they would leave it to the market.
The hidden hand would sort it all out. The main opposition Conservative Party and the ruling Labour Party swear there will be no subsidy: Let nuclear find its own place.
It sounds easy, whereas forcing greater energy efficiency is untidy and requires people to do things.
The danger is that politicians have decided they have taken the "hard decision" and nuclear is "the answer".
If a "mix" is needed, the nuclear concrete mixers may grind up the wind, solar, wave and tidal generators that will be needed before the first lightbulb is lit by a new reactor.
Meanwhile, the "nuclear answer" deceives the public and delays yet further the necessary great national energy-efficiency drive that politicians continue to avoid. — THE GUARDIAN
A longer version of this commentary appeared in The Guardian on Friday.
