Over at the New Statesman, Simon Hughes, the Lib Dems’ shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, mounts a passionate defence of the party’s call for an independent inquiry into nuclear power – a call which led pro-nuclear environmental campaigner Mark Lynas to far-fetchedly claim the lights could go out in the event of a hung parliament.
First, Simon points out the need for an independent inquiry into the “justification” for nuclear power:
“Justification” is the process of assessment of the health effects of nuclear power and is a legal requirement before any new nuclear plant can operate in the UK. One of the means by which it can be carried out is through a public inquiry. The purpose of my call was precisely so that scientific evidence could be examined in the open, and that nuclear scientists, other experts and the public can participate in the decision-making process for new nuclear power in a meaningful way. This call was supported by roughly 80 leading research academics and nuclear scientists in the UK.
If Lynas is so convinced that the health detriments of nuclear are simply an urban myth as he claims, he too should have no problem with a public inquiry. He may however also know that the nuclear power lobby is worried that since the publication of the KiKK study by the German government in 2008 “justification” may not survive more detailed scrutiny.
And as for the overblown danger of the “lights going out” if the Lib Dems are in government:
here. Mark Lynas’s polemic is here.This is not just a difference of opinion; it is objectively untrue. With the best will in the world there will not be a new nuclear power station built in this country within seven years. The power stations coming offline over the next decade meant that we need new power generation to come online to replace them before that. With the huge capital costs of nuclear (current estimates are that each reactor will cost not less than £5bn), and the investment this would take away from other sources, nuclear power could actually hinder our chances of bringing the necessary new sources of energy online.
As for Mr Lynas’s claim that the Tories’ nuclear plans are sensible – well, I guess that depends on whether you believe David Cameron’s environmental advisor or his environmental spokesman, as the two seem to have very different views, as Lib Dem Voice recently highlighted.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the TV drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
Paul Holmes
David McHardy
George Thomas
2 Comments
In particular I want to see serious consideration given to alternative nuclear technologies. There are a lot of new Asian reactor designs that are cheaper, safer, more efficient, and are less susceptible to being perverted for weapons production. This is because they’ve been seriously developing the technology while we’ve been avoiding it.
For some reason the UK nuclear industry seems to want to go on building the same old things they always have. I suspect this is based not on what is best for the country, but on what makes it impossible for the contracts to be awarded to any other company.
Disregarding the over-use of the words, surely Lynas’ article is less a polemic than an apologia for nuclear. On the other hand, this post could be said to be a polemic against Lynas.
Oh, well…