The government’s Energy White Paper, released in May this year, has generated a flurry of controversy surrounding the issue of nuclear power and has raised important questions about how seriously the government takes the process of public consultation.
 
The paper sets out the framework for a ‘low carbon economy’ for the UK. This includes support for renewable energy, low carbon transport and energy efficiency measures – and even a forthcoming competition for carbon capture and storage techniques – but also an open door to the possibility of a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Acknowledging that nuclear technology is contentious, the White Paper makes clear that policy cannot be finalised until the completion of a full public consultation. This statement has since attracted derision, following Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s subsequent declaration of intent to proceed with nuclear power, which he made before the consultation was complete.
 
The public at the table
Greenpeace experienced a sense of déjà vu, having precipitated a high court ruling in February this year that a previous consultation must be repeated, since the ensuing decision to support nuclear had not been based on the ‘fullest’ of processes. At the time of writing, Greenpeace’s lawyers were awaiting a response to their latest challenge to the validity of the decision-making process.
A spokesperson for Demos, the ‘think tank for everyday democracy’, pointed out that while Demos has no particular stance on nuclear power itself, ‘People won’t have confidence in the consultation process where it’s clear they’re not being listened to. Having the public at the table is valuable: it leads to more robust decision-making and outcomes. The public bring ways of questioning assumptions that experts may not think to consider.’
 
Energy mix
This dispute may be resolved by the time SPA goes to press but the question of whether nuclear power is the way forward will reverberate for some time. Nuclear Industry Association Chief Executive Keith Parker, welcomed the government line: ‘A diverse energy mix is right for the UK and the White Paper reflects that. Nuclear must be a part of that mix; we cannot hope to reduce emissions without nuclear’s contribution.’
Others, however, are sceptical even if the public does show support. Greenpeace points out that replacing the UK’s suite of nuclear power stations will cost tens of billions of pounds while reducing the country’s carbon emissions by a mere 4 per cent, ‘sometime after 2024’.
Meanwhile, a recent report by the Oxford Research Group casts doubts on nuclear power as a global solution to climate change.1 It says that, to make a significant difference, 48 reactors must be built each year until 2075, many of them in the developing world. The nuclear industry claims this is feasible, but Dr Frank Barnaby, one of the report’s authors, said, ‘They rather miss the point, which is: can these countries find enough resources or skilled personnel? Can they run the reactors safely and securely and deal with the radioactive waste?’

1. Too hot to handle? The future of civil nuclear power; see http://tinyurl.com/3b27r8

Vanessa Spedding is the Shorts Editor