Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Is Go in Britain

Chris_Huhne_MPThe other day, we ran a bit noting that the British government issued a report that cleared the way for new nuclear build in the United Kingdom. I used it to make a larger point, but it is rather a point in itself. For one thing, it has led to a very substantial change of heart for the Liberal Democratic Energy Minister Chris Huhne.

In the most pro-nuclear speech by a Cabinet minister for years, Mr. Huhne, who campaigned against nuclear power before taking office, told the Royal Society: ‘Nuclear energy has risks, but we face the greater risk of accelerating climate change if we do not embark on another generation of nuclear power. Time is running out. Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low-carbon electricity.”

The British government is currently a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The latter, which doesn’t quite line up with the American Democratic party (it’s a little further to the left by U.S. standards), but close enough, is very much against nuclear energy.

How much against? This much:

“Nuclear power has always required huge amounts of public money and David Cameron’s signal that the Tories are ready to turn on the taps of taxpayer support risks billions that we simply can’t afford.

“Nuclear energy is not clean energy. A new generation of nuclear power stations would leave us with a legacy of deadly radioactive waste that will take hundreds of years and billions of pounds to clean up.”

This is Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Simon Hughes in 2010, before the Liberal Democrats took some of the levers of power.

Does this make Huhne and Liberal Democrats hypocrites? Well, I think it has more to do with the nature of coalition government than any particular party position, but really, that decision will be left up to British voters.

In the meantime, Huhne is walking a notably frayed tightrope:

The climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, has described the UK's nuclear policy as the "most expensive failure of postwar British policy-making" in a "crowded and highly-contested field."

Huhne set out five tests for how power plants would be adopted in a cautious new regime, but is under pressure from his party to ensure any new-builds do not receive public subsidy – something the coalition has pledged it will not allow. [I guess this accounts for one of Hughes’ issues.]

Speaking at the Royal Society on Thursday, Huhne said: "If we are to retain public support for nuclear as a key part of our future energy mix then we have to show that we have learned the lessons from our past mistakes."

This isn’t boilerplate – these are important things to say – and perhaps they allow Huhne to save face a bit. Or maybe not:

However, in the past few weeks Huhne's own party has hardened its position on new nuclear power, putting pressure on the climate change secretary to begin a fresh battle with the Treasury.

I suspect it hasn’t hardened it in warm hearted ways.

Regardless, even if we feel a little uncomfortable with the position Huhne has been cast into, we’ll take it. Because he’s right: “Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low-carbon electricity.” Not “can be,” is. Otherwise, to quote the Thunderbirds, nuclear energy is go in Britain.

Chris Huhne. I suspect he carries a furrowed brow with him much of the time.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
I have to agree with Huhn and disagree with your correction.

"Because he’s right: “Nuclear can be a vital and affordable means of providing low-carbon electricity.” Not “can be,” is. Otherwise, to quote the Thunderbirds, nuclear energy is go in Britain."

Although nuclear when done correctly can be affordable, history also shows that it can be made completely unaffordable through a combination of factors.

A contender for the most expensive heat ever produced are the few watts that the $5.9 billion dollar Shoreham nuclear plant produced during low power testing. The only power more expensive than that comes from Tokamak fusion systems.

I hope that both the UK and the US have leaders that look VERY hard at the past to understand the lessons that need to be learned and implemented in order to make the second nuclear age a sustainable contribution to our overall energy supply.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …