Tory MP Ian Taylor attacks Greenpeace's "hypocrisy" in opposing nuclear energy

Tory MP Ian Taylor, Chairman of the Conservative Party's Science and Technology taskforce, has issued a statement today urging Britain to embrace nuclear power:

"Unless the Government moves quickly to boost the nuclear power station rebuilding programme, there is no hope in meeting the non-fossil fuel targets. Wind and wave power alone will not suffice.  Greenpeace shows sheer hypocrisy in pressing its objections. Members should resign in protest if they are seriously 'green'."

In the video below Mr Taylor describes the belief that a little more wind and wave power will deliver energy security as "emotionally confused".  Only nuclear power, he says, will help Britain to substantially reduce its dependence on oil from the Middle East and gas from Russia.

The initial Cameron position on nuclear power was to regard it as a "last resort" but that language is no longer being used.  The Tories now believe that as long as there is a fair and equitable financial regime, nuclear power should be an important part of Britain's future energy mix.  The Liberal Democrats remain firmly opposed to any more nuclear power plants.  12% of Tory members agreed with the LibDems' opposition to nuclear power.  85% disagreed with it.

Early last month David Cameron gave a speech to Greenpeace, promising a decentralised energy revolution where people are paid for the energy they produce.

Related link: Of kettles and car engines - why nuclear power is not the solution to energy security by Peter Franklin

Comments

[powellite]

Good lad! Couldn't agree more. I'd much rather have a new raft of nuclear stations than wind turbines blighting our landscapes.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It would be nice if wind and wave power could provide an answer to Britain's energy needs but as far as I'm aware no serious commentator believes that will be so although the percentage of our the energy gained from those sources can be increased. As unpalatable as it may be it is very difficult to look beyond nuclear energy as being the major option at the moment.

[George Hinton]

I'm pleased that Teddy has had the courage to speak out against the dirigiste fascists of Greenpeace.
They waffle on about renewables but have no positive policies and ignore the fact that the present renewable energy concerns are reliant on significant government grants. They are also philistines on a grand order, wanting to cover this island in wind farms with their ugly and noisy pylons. Or are accepting of untested risks using estuary barrages.
We need reliable and viable power generation, no amount of cant from the lefties about eco-conservancy will lower consumption by any appreciable amount for a decade or more. In the meantime no one is going to congratulate a government that allows lights out and heat off to the community, whilst Greenpeace and their ilk will sidle off the touchline keeping very quiet or front it out and join in the slagging.
Nuclear power is really the only viable option we have to ensure that we guarantee our own power needs. Russia and Putin have shown the west how oil and gas can be used as the new poltical leverage weapon. Indeed, can we really trust our so-called allies in Brussels?, when oil and gas is rationed, for favours and leverage, we may be sure that the europeans will be to the fore in the scramble, apart from the French who obtain a significant level of power from nuclear sources.
I trust that DC will take this forward as policy and ignore the siren voices of the eco-idiots. No-one will love the politicoes when it all goes tits up.

[Paul D]

And again we get the lie of how green nuclear power is

Digging, refining, enriching and transporting uranium ore into a workable fuel at the power plant are hugely energy intensive operations

The actual point of power generation may not liberate carbon dioxide but the nuclear process is far from an environmental panacea

[dizzy]

The way I see it the real problem is how many very senior people have close nepotistic links to the nuclear power industry. Gordon Brown's bother is the Director of Communications for EDF, whilst the Balls/Cooper family is linked to the NDA.

[Mike E]

About time that DC came off the fence and gave his support to nuclear power as a strategic source of power generation for the UK. No amount of juggling with the figures will ever make wind power a viable primary source of energy: cold clear conditions in winter - when demand for electricity is at a maximum - are characteristic of high pressure weather systems when the wind is usually very light or non-existant.

[passing leftie]

For a market solution:

1. There should be no public subsidies or guarantees for nuclear energy.

2. The private sector should deal with waste an decomissioning.

3. With the above, the electricity should sell at a market rate.

This is all nonsense, of course. Do you want massive subsidies for nuclear power? If so, why aren't you prepared to give them for wind/wave power?

[Graham]

Fuel for the reactors should not cause much inpact on the enviroment as mining is not needed. We have large stock of plutinium which needs to be distroyed and the best way to do this is to use it a fuel in a reactor. Add it to the already existing stocks of uranium to produce mixed oxide fuel. Two problems solved.

[R.Baker.]

This countries OIL/GAS Industries Vs it's NUCLEAR Industry in the production of POWER/ENERGY really is a no contest.
The list of deaths and injuries caused within the OLI/GAS Industries is gigantic compared to the Nuclear Industry.
Clouding the Nuclear issue with largescale hazardous material storage uncertainties does not change the fact that NUCLEAR is cleaner and much safer as well as the fact that it is reliable and delivers POWER.
(Unlike the wind and waterpower dribbles).

[Mark Fulford]

20 years ago I would have objected to nuclear power stations on the basis of risk. Since then:

1. the risk inherent in nuclear energy has reduced,

2. and the risks posed by global warming have increased.

I believe that the balance has shifted so that, while not ideal, nuclear power is now our safest, most secure energy source. As for getting rid of the waste... I see absolutely no problem in dumping it in the deepest ocean trenches where there is virtually no life to disturb and where time naturally moves on geological scales.

All this said, there's every reason to also work on wind and water power. Perfected to the point where they could meet our needs, they would undeniably provide safer, cheaper energy. Water, in particular, is also much more able to cope with surges in demand.

[Tanuki]

To be honest, paying attention to FOE or Greenpeace when it comes to anything nuclear makes about as much sense as asking a nun for advice on ways to uplift your sex-life.

The various anti-nuclear-power pressure groups are in a serious self-inflicted knot over the issue of CO2 emissions, and we need to work round them not with them if the country is to get any long-term energy security.

Forget "renewable" energy, focus on 'reliable' energy. That's the only thing that will keep the lights on.

[Josh]

"Digging, refining, enriching and transporting uranium ore into a workable fuel at the power plant are hugely energy intensive operations"

Lifecycle costs are about comparable to that of wind.

"For a market solution:

1. There should be no public subsidies or guarantees for nuclear energy.

2. The private sector should deal with waste an decomissioning.

3. With the above, the electricity should sell at a market rate.

This is all nonsense, of course. Do you want massive subsidies for nuclear power? If so, why aren't you prepared to give them for wind/wave power?"

What you say is entirely correct. I hope that's the way the government goes.

[Joe James Broughton]

The trouble with this is we don't know how to get rid of the waste.
It's accumulating from what we already have, and even the French appear to be storing it in cylinders underground - awaiting a long term solution.

Probably deep burial - way down - inside very thick cylinders is the best way - but I'm not sure. I know a civil engineer and he said, that, in the event of an earthquake, it could still get out.

And until we resolve these issues, we don't know the cost.

I don't think we are exploiting the potential for tide - and the amount of power that could be generated off the Bristol Channel/Severn alone.

[Andrew Boff]

Many now agree that the entire costs of new nuclear power stations should be borne by the nuclear industry and not the tax payer.
I would love to have sight of the business plan that will guarantee the 100,000 year revenue stream that will be required to pay for the security of fissile waste.

[Joe James Broughton]

Yes - that's a good point, from Andrew Boff.

But there seems to be a wall of silence from those charged with making the decision.

[David Dundas]

Glad to see that Ian Taylor has reopened the nuclear debate which was going well on these pages 18 months ago. Much as we all worry about the dangers of nuclear power, the danger from climate change is far greater. Oil, gas and coal are all fossil fuels that were laid down over millions of years as plants captured CO2 from the air, but we are releasing it very fast with the probability that we will return our planet to the very inhospitable climate that existed in its infancy, if climate change is not stopped in its tracks.

We must stop releasing fossil CO2 into the air. There is no way that alternative energies other than nuclear power can do the job fast enough to stop the climate change juggernaut.

About the cost diferential, yes nuclear is presently more expensive than burning fossil fuels, so why not levy a tax on fossil fuel energy according to its production of C02 (just like we do for cars)and use it to subsidise nuclear power?

Within 50 years, it is possible that we will have clean nuclear fusion energy if the ITER project is successful (see http://www.iter.org/)which will have almost no waste at all.