Sir David King on nuclear
Sir David King has an article in today’s Guardian where he defends his decision to back nuclear. Somewhat oddly given the article’s headline, he only briefly discusses nuclear and mainly focuses on the problem of climate change, stabilization levels, and emissions trading. Interestingly though, he says:
I emphatically do not believe in direct government subsidies for nuclear energy. (emphasis added)
So does that mean he no longer supports an electricity levy to support nuclear? Does the government paying insurance and waste costs count as a “direct” subsidy?
Nuclear debate in the Observer
There were some interesting articles on the nuclear debate in today’s Observer for those who are interested:
- Grasping the nuclear nettle by the Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, gives the basic government position saying that it’s time to revisit civil nuclear but the forthcoming review will be open-minded – “The answer could be yes. But it could be no.”
- ‘We have no other option’, the pro-nuclear angle from former energy minster Brian Wilson interestingly points out the 62% of Britains would support nuclear “if it was part of a strategy that also included increased reliance on renewables” – in other words, pointing out that the question may not be either or.
- ‘Who puts up the cash?’ by Prof Gordon McKerron, chair of the Committee for Radioactive Waste Management. A great read with the following quote – “The risk for the nuclear industry is that if it argues for 10,000 MW or nothing, it may get nothing.”
The Economist this week was saying that Blair has a tendency to be over-eager in accepting new ideas and promoting them (Bagehot). But if he’s feeling patient, there appear to be many around who are ready for a frank discussion before concluding what technology or technologies are needed to secure the UK’s energy supply and address climate concerns.