Energy review 'a sham' to back Blair on nuclear

[jpak]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1816301,00.html

A major review of Britain's future energy supplies has been a sham designed only to push through Tony Blair's dream of a new generation of nuclear power stations, a former leading government adviser claims today.

Stephen Hale, who until a few weeks ago was special adviser to the then Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, writes in The Observer that the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the alternatives' to nuclear energy. 'The depressing truth is that the review was undertaken primarily to act as a springboard to formally initiate the government's nuclear position,' says Hale, who is now director of the Green Alliance think-tank.

The review of the government's 2003 energy white paper - expected to be published this week - is believed to support a new wave of reactors to replace Britain's ageing nuclear power stations, which are soon to be decommissioned. It will say, however, that 'the market' will decide how much new generating capacity needs to be built.

It will give more support for energy efficiency, renewable power and 'decentralised' local supplies. Small wind turbines and combined heat and power units that run on gas or biofuels are expected to be part of the new regime.

<more>

<on edit> Hale's Observer editorial here...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1816067,00.html

The worst kept secret in British politics will be out this week, when the government's Energy Review confirms that Labour wants a new generation of nuclear power stations.

It will be the central conclusion of the Review, though expect ministers to play it down and announce some welcome surprises for supporters of renewable energy, energy efficiency and the alternative vision of a de-centralised energy system set out by the green movement and embraced last week by the Conservatives. However, the Review will be remembered not for these, but for a costly and misguided commitment to a new wave of nuclear power stations.

Britain's energy infrastructure is creaking. The big energy generators are desperate for a long-term framework to enable them to make long-term investment. But the depressing truth is that the Review was undertaken primarily to act as a springboard to formally initiate the government's nuclear position.

The Prime Minister has made crystal clear from the outset that he sees no way of achieving Britain's goal of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 without new nuclear plants. He is wrong. But he has refused to consider the alternatives. When the Sustainable Development Commission published its comprehensive analysis on a nuclear-free low-carbon economy, the Prime Minister rejected it only 24 hours later at Prime Minister's Questions.

<more>

[acmavm]

1. Poodle is quite the Decider himself, no?