Nuclear Reactions

It is practically the mantra of our time that the planet is going to hell in a handcart and we need to do something about this as a species quickly unless people want any of the following to occur: (a) the polar bear to disappear (b) the o-zone layer to disappear or (c) the Maldives to disappear.

This is of course a problem which would at best be dealt with by a world government. But since the earliest likely date for the establishment of a workable co-operative international organisation not riven by national or sectional interest is sometime after the o-zone layer has drowned, the polar bear has melted and the Maldives burnt up, it seems we are stuck with the current system of semi-co-operating nations trying (or trying not) to do their bit.

Britain is admittedly a very small country when it comes to any facile statistic such as the amount of atmosphere above it. It is larger when you consider the bits of continental shelf we own. It is larger again when you consider our contributions of CFCs, methane and general industrial junket into the atmosphere over the last three hundred years.

The current climate though is not just confused by the gradual process of planet slaughter which Western Europe has exported around the globe (sorry if I sound like a hippy but I’m trying to get into their mindset). Due in part to the increasing scarcity of minerals and other useful stuff, nations are starting to get prickly when it comes to sharing what they have with others (you only have to look at Eurovision 2008 to realise that. Hell, even Georgia gave Russia 12 points. I can imagine Mr Putin/Mendevev’s hand hovering over the gas taps as the votes came in!) We (collectively, globally, nationally and personally) are approaching what is probably the most serious energy crisis in recent centuries.

Given this backdrop, given the fact that even the evil nasty United States is moving away from its hardline opposition to global warming theories, the reactions of various green pressure groups to yesterday’s government announcements on fossil fuels and nuclear power seem odd.

I do not wish to get involved with all the pros and cons of nuclear fuels per se. What has got my goat (and indeed got my goat typing at a fair rate of knots), is the reaction of the Greenpeace spokesman, Friends of the Earth spokesman, the CPRE spokeswoman and a handful of other ethical souls during various news programmes last night (I don’t go out much) that (and here I paraphrase somewhat) “nuclear power is not the answer” to the energy crisis. In a nice piece of polly-parrot politics, this position which was incidentally repeated by the Lib Dems,almost word for word, presumably indicating they were too lazy to come up with a soundbite of their own. 

Certainly, as the government pointed out, nuclear power is a medium-term solution. Certainly, this sits uncomfortably next to pressuring North Sea Oil companies to squeeze the last bits of sludge out of the seabed. But what I do not precisely see is how this is “not the answer to today’s energy crisis.” Possibly if planning for the current (and almost certain to deepen) crisis had begun when the Lib Dems were last in power, the current problems would have been minimalised somewhat.

So, we have the interesting situation that, whatever their wonderful ethical principles, the green lobby has now left the planet completely. They are correct that we have been dependent on oil for too long. And certainly, they’re correct that governments of every colour across the world should have listened (and should be listening) to them for several decades longer than they have. The old political maxim that only environmental policy which effects productivity/the economy will be enacted has again been proved true.

But it is also worth observing that the current government is taking action to establish a reliable, long-term solution to the energy crisis. This has, as the old maxim says, come only at the point where the people feel the pinch. It is churlish in the extreme – whatever high principle is at stake – to argue that this is not the time for nuclear. We are faced economically, politically, globally and environmentally with the energy crisis. It would be nice to be able to fall back on green energy sources but these have been so hopelessly underfunded by successive governments that, for the most part, we are not in a position to provide a reliable, cost-effective solution. In the meantime, we have the technology, expertise and industry to support an expansion of nuclear power.

Apart from the wringing hands and declaring portentiously that this is “not the time for nuclear”, there have, in the current climate, been two even more laughable anti-nuclear reactions. The first is the “scary terrorists” argument. Since nuclear facilities are some of the most secure sites in the country precisely because of their devastating power, this seems unlikely. Statistically (normally, I would never use that word, but for now I am forced to), there have been no major terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations in Britain (or the rest of the world), unless you count the at times reprehensible practices of environmentalists.

The second argument comes in two strains. The Chernobyl strain, which embodies everything that is bad about slippery slope arguments, and the “public health” argument. Here, as with any relatively new technology, there are arguments on both sides. Yet given both the massive amount of research that has gone into the safety and containment of both nuclear complexes and the waste they produce and the sheer levels of NIMBYism which something as innocuous as a wind turbine can provoke, it seems to me at least fairly clear that the government will be going into these things exceptionally closer, if only for the cynical reasons of avoiding unfortunate headlines such as “Darling the baby-butcherer.”

We are in a position which is only going to get worse. The public are opposed to nuclear power just because it sounds a bit scary, yet they also come out in OUTRAGE if green energy generation is proposed near their home. You only have to see the objections which (to name a few) offshore wind-turbines, the Severn barrage and a small tidal hub off Hayle have provoked to get the gist.

Given the fact that many of our European neighbours (France, Germany to name but two) have invested much more in nuclear energy than Britain in order to provide energy security and have programmes which have met with a lot less controversy, I feel it is vital that we as a nation grow up and accept the role of nuclear energy in providing energy for the UK.

The government are faced with a stark choice. The public seem unlikely to accept massive investment in green energies, yet are complaining at rising fuel costs. It is the government’s role to be realists, to look at the bigger picture, and guarantee energy security and provision into the future. It is simply being unrealistic for the green lobby to object to nuclear in the current economic, international and environmental situation. 

Wake up and smell the roses, or is that uranium on the breeze, tree-hugger?