Nuclear power must not become the cuckoo in our energy nest

John Hutton's defence elsewhere on this site of his decision to go nuclear carefully avoids the most telling argument of his opponents, namely that backing the nuclear option could crowd out adequate support for the carbon-free alternatives.

As Polly Toynbee put it in her column last  Friday, "The most serious objection is not safety but "nuclear blight", the probability that government and energy firms' cash,engineers and project management capacity is swept up in this great nuclear South Sea bubble and nothing is left for the renewables...The danger is that politicians have decided that they have taken the "hard decision" and nuclear is the "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".

Of course the government has commendably stepped up support for renewables, as John Hutton points out in his article. But failng to address the concern that nuclear power will now preempt resources that would have otherwise gone towards the alternatives could leave us saddled with more, expensive nuclear power stations (with all their related terrorist and safety risks) together with more nuclear waste that will need to be safeguarded over many thousands of years, just at a time when a quantum leap in the development of cheaper, cleaner, safer solar based technologies appears to be in the offing.

Progressives should respond by seeking cast-iron assurances from the government that retaining the nuclear option will not be at the expense of giving appropriate support for the renewables. If such technologies are properly funded my feeling is that the new reactors may well become redundant before they have even started work.

Comments

[Willoughby Hart]

I do not see why nuclear power should crowd out other renewable energy prospects whatever these may be .
Any viable system will have to be funded by private enterprise and develope an income stream to justify itsself with the same carbon credits as apply to nuclear .
Any likley contender may need R&D support in the early stages and this is available through the usual methods .
The simple fact is that there is no renuable energy project on the table capable of supplying any serious quantity of power .

To make the point .The backers of winmills etc have found it necessary to invent a new unit of electrical power namely the "Home".during a lifetime in electrical engineering I never met this unit. could some one please tell me how many homes there are to a megawatt ?.
I am not a climate change denier but the only solution seems to be to use less power in the short run.
Build nuclear and hope for Fusion.

kind regards
Bill