Country needs nuclear power, Government insists
The Government today insisted the country needed nuclear power as it prepared to unveil plans to fast-track a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband acknowledged anxieties about nuclear power but said it had a "relatively good" safety record in this country.
"The basic message here is, we can't say no to all of the nuclear or all of the low carbon fuels that are out there," he told GMTV.
"We need nuclear, we need renewables, we need clean coal, we need all of those things if we are going to make that transition to cleaner energy."
Mr Miliband was speaking as he was due to announce a series of national policy statements which would include a list of sites deemed suitable for new nuclear developments.
Under changes to the planning laws, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will be able to speed through the proposals for new schemes if it decided they fitted in with the policy statements.
But shadow energy secretary Greg Clark said that a simple ministerial statement on the issue was inadequate and called for a Commons vote to give the process "democratic legitimacy".
"So whatever happens with these statements we've got a black hole, but actually we do need a different planning system, we need a fast track for major items of infrastructure.
"The trouble with the way the Government's doing it is, it has no democratic component. The statements will just be read out to MPs without a vote and the decisions will be taken by an unelected, unaccountable official.
"We think it should be a minister taking that decision, accountable to Parliament, with the necessary time limit, about three months, so it doesn't delay the process.
"But it does need to have democratic legitimacy otherwise people will find this an imposition that they will rail against."
Mr Miliband said it would not be his decision about whether a new nuclear power station is built in an area.
"It is not going to be a decision for me, it is going to be a decision for an independent commission that will take a view about what the local feeling is," he said.
The proposed changes contrast with examples such as the six-year struggle to steer the Sizewell B power station through the planning process, and is likely to encourage foreign firms such as E.ON, RWE npower and EDF to produce a new fleet of UK power stations that could be up and running by 2017.
Alongside nuclear power, the Government will issue draft policy statements setting out the national need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels, gas and infrastructure, as well as an overarching energy statement.
Green groups expressed dismay at the prospect of new nuclear power and warned the Government could be open to legal challenge if the statements do not properly consider climate change.
They have also raised concerns that people will not be able to influence decisions on major projects because schemes covered by the statements will not be subject to public inquiry.
But the Government insists firms will have to work closely with local regions and show they have consulted widely to gain approval.
The statements are expected to cite the finite nature of fossil fuels and the pressing demands of climate change while making the case for nuclear power stations.
Mr Miliband will also set out the financial and regulatory framework for driving forward clean coal "carbon capture and storage" technology, but Greenpeace said neither should be part of Britain's future energy mix.
Robin Oakley, head of the group's climate and energy campaign, said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the battle against climate change should be at the core of all Government decisions to meet commitments on reducing emissions.
And he added: "Building new nuclear reactors is not the answer to the challenges of climate change and energy security.
"Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
"And building new plants would divert precious resources from developing safe renewable power, while doing little to bring about the urgent emissions reductions that are desperately needed within the next decade."
Mr Miliband, who will unveil the draft national policy statements to the Commons, said they were crucial for the shape of Britain's future energy supply.
"We know the low-carbon transition is a huge challenge," he said.
"We now need to move on to getting the actions in place to make it happen.
"That is why the national policy statements and Infrastructure Planning Commission are important, because the truth is that we are not going to be able to deliver a 21st century energy system with a 20th century planning system."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
Every independent study shows that wind and tidal power will only be viable with enormous government subsidies especially the former. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/0
As to so called green jobs. This is another myth. All the while we allow China and India to manufacture our goods for us at a fraction of what we must pay, the so called green jobs will go there.
All that said, CHP installations can make a great deal of sense (sitting as I am in a flat heated by biomass-powered one!) but they're not the answer in and of themselves.
As for nukes, I don't think the UK has any other option but to build new ones. Hopefully they'll be built (a) to a design that has the eventual decommissioning in mind and (b) mostly to the same design, thus reducing the costs at the far end. Might also be a good idea to build a small number of Integral Fast Reactors which should massively reduce the waste problem whilst also generating power.
Nuclear turbines generate a fantastic amount of heat, which requires massive quantities of cooling water, hence the preferred coastal siting of most nuclear power stations. Sea levels are predicted to rise anywhere between 1 metre and 75 metres by the end of the century, and even the lower range of the estimate will be hard to hold back with barrages. Yes, I know we are already in a hole about this, but do we have to keep on digging?
Fusion power was thirty years away when my brother was doing his physics doctorate, in the 1960's. And it still is. Bizarre. Apparently, $6 billion is to be put in to fusion research this year. Hey people, we're going to make a mini star on earth! Excuse me for my sceptism. And trepidation.
Fossil fuel energy generation has to be progressively replaced, the planet cannot stand it much longer, and anyway, it's getting harder to source.
It is a shame to lump all the other power generation technologies into a single 'renewables' basket, when they are multivariously diverse, and each different method of power/heat generation has it's place. Solar is getting cheaper and easier - thin film technology, nano printing techniques... Wind works, in it's way. It's good for what it's good for. Geothermal heat pumps. Tidal barrages - for the UK, this is big and reliable. Hydro, for generation and as a proven storage system.
The nimbies must be brought on side. The destruction of the purity of you visual horizon cannot be a reason to deny permission to a wind farm, the potential alteration of habitats cannot provide a veto to a tidal barrage. These changes we can learn to live with, and so can the wading birds.
But nothing survives deuterium and plutonium. Except the cockroaches. Or is that an urban myth?
We are all capable of halving our own energy use, without great difficulty. So that'll help. Take up the slack in the economy thus created by getting on with building the Severn barrage, more welsh pumped water storage, smarten up the power grid, insulating and energizing. Car factories would surely find some work in these areas.
The profit from the electricity can then go to a few selected "friendly" shareholders.
Once the power station is due to be closed a section in the contract will be unveiled that ensures that the private firm can hand back the now finished nuclear waste time bomb to the tax payer who can clear the mess up!
Well that's the usual way Goverments deal with these things so why should this time be any different!
I suspect there would also be a "leak" get out clause too!
See my original thread here:
http://news.independentminds.livejourna
The energy lobby have more power than an elected member.
I didn't think it was, " president gas " literally.
Quite sad really. 73% of our energy use is fosil fuel and with
a vested interest will probably remain so. If these stations arn't
built our fosil fuel percentage actually increases.
Any leaders out there ? We need saving.
NOTE to self: The forecast says it might be a bit nippy soon so I must remember to turn the thermostat up. If only I could have a remote to do it, after all everything else is on a remote now - even the tilt of my chair. Anyway, I have to go 'cause the 4x4 is running on the drive to warm it up - I'm off to the shopping centre... I NEED to buy something, don't know what but life's just not worth it without toys, is it? Can maybe get a take-away on the way back or maybe pop out again to the pub for a steak... mmmm! Could see what's on offer at the Travel Agents as well. Fed up with going over to the finca in Spain... 4 times last year, its getting to be a bore. I could fancy New Zealand or even....
Completely agree with you. Nuclear has many of the attributes of renewable power but a couple of major drawbacks:
- possible catastrophic failure and
- very, very expensive disposal of waste products.
The down side of renewables is:
- we need a massive increase in scale of installations,
- they dont produce power 100% of the time
- offshore power is in its infancy (wind, wave and tidal)
So yes, we need some nuclear and lots of green power.