editorial from Sunday Herald, 21 May 2006
ONE of the more bizarre things about Tony Blair’s energy review is that it doesn’t seem to be about energy. It is about electricity, which makes up less than a fifth of the energy we use.
Worse than that, the review is focused on nuclear power, which only provides a fifth of the UK’s electricity. So why are we getting so het up about such a marginal energy source that can’t even fire our central heating boilers or fuel our cars?
One reason is that Blair looks like he is trying to bounce us into a premature decision. After a private briefing on the current energy review’s progress on Monday, he told a business dinner on Tuesday that nuclear power was “back on the agenda with a vengeance”.
It was a soundbite designed to win headlines, and it succeeded. But it pre-empted the conclusion of his own review, which is not due before July. And it confirmed what many have long suspected: that Blair has already decided to build a new generation of nuclear power plants.
The Prime Minister’s outburst also seemed to ignore Scotland since, as we report today, the Scottish Executive has so far failed to submit its response to the review. So we have some sympathy with those, like the former environment minister Sarah Boyack, who are worried that the nation is in danger of being railroaded into the wrong choice.
Most countries, the UK included, haven’t built any nuclear stations since Chernobyl exploded and showered Europe with radioactivity 20 years ago. The fact it is now back on Blair’s agenda is a tribute to the unseen power of the nuclear industry lobby, which has been at the heart of government for more than half a century.
As the veteran nuclear expert Walt Patterson points out, the only reason the industry has made such advances is that some of today’s politicians and officials have forgotten its history. One glance at Dounreay, a £4 billion job-creation project to make a radioactive mess, and then clean it up, should be enough to temper their nuclear enthusiasm.
There is still a big argument to be had. But if, at the end of it, Blair gets to build some new nuclear power stations, we would endorse Patterson’s suggestion that future generations should be left in no doubt of his legacy. The first one should be named the “Tony Blair nuclear plant”.
Comments