This vision for Britain's nuclear future is to be warmly welcomed

Independent

a day ago

A politician with such a long and mixed track record as energy secretary Ed Miliband should perhaps have been more wary of declaring that nuclear power will 'deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance', and that it is 'the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis'.
Such things may yet prove to be so – and indeed investment in a new generation of nuclear power may well be inevitable. However, it is equally the case that the history of nuclear power in Britain, spanning some seven decades, has been far from an unalloyed success.
At home and – sadly, more dramatically – abroad, scientists and engineers overconfident in their abilities and seized by the promise of the future have found themselves all too often watching the consequences of their complacency played out with devastating effect, most infamously at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Six Mile Island, but also at many other locations. Previous visions of a golden age melted down as rapidly as the faulty reactors.
If the early post-war hopes for the peaceful use of nuclear power had been well founded, just as was claimed in the 1950s, the abundant electrical power generated by nuclear fission would have been so cheap it would have been pointless to meter and charge for it, fossil fuels would have been rendered redundant, and, as it happens, the pace of climate change greatly retarded.
But it was not to be. Therefore, the public is right to be sceptical now about why, in the old and dangerous phrase, 'this time it's different'. With those heavy caveats, Mr Miliband's announcements about Britain's nuclear future are to be welcomed, and his reasoning endorsed.
He is right, above all, to seek a great variety and plurality in sources of the UK's long-term energy supply. As the Germans discovered when the Nord Stream pipelines and gas supplies from Vladimir Putin's Russia were cut, it is extremely unwise to become so heavily dependent on any single source of energy. Mr Miliband declares himself an enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and even fossil fuel sources where effective carbon capture can be achieved.
In the nuclear sphere, he's also correct to adopt the previous government's plans for small, 'modular' reactors, which could speed up the transition from carbon and reduce costs. The only disappointment in that area is that time has already been lost, and Rolls-Royce and other private interests are not yet in a position to make any deployment pump meaningful wattage into the National Grid before the early to mid-2030s, as Mr Miliband told the House of Commons.
The £14.2bn investment in the Sizewell C plant is a more traditional kind of project, and carries the familiar risks. Mr Miliband will need to be much more specific about private sector involvement, and who will bear the financial risks for such a costly programme over such a long and uncertain timeframe. Disposal of waste and decommissioning costs will also have to be fully transparent to carry public opinion, especially for the people of Suffolk, who will be hosting this latest iteration of a long-standing lodger.
Of course, it all would have been better if successive governments hadn't slowed the nuclear programme in the aftermath of successive accidents, and had found the money to invest in previous decades. In fact, the Sizewell C plant is set to become Britain's first new nuclear power station since 1995. The French have long prioritised nuclear power and weathered the recent energy crisis better than the British or the Germans, more tied as they were to foreign gas and soaring world prices.
The aim now is to ensure that the new generation of nuclear power doesn't turn into a costly disaster, and can indeed help the transition to renewables and lower energy bills. Cheap, plentiful power and net zero on track? Mr Miliband may yet leave a legacy more permanent than any of his colleagues. Golden, indeed.