October 10 sees the end of a public "consultation" to "help the government take a decision on the future of nuclear power in the UK". The exercise is completely cynical.
In February the government were found in court to have prejudged the issue, having held a previous consultation, described by the judge as "seriously flawed, misleading and unfair".
They were forced to launch a new, longer consultation, which has now been boycotted by Greenpeace, CND, WWF, Friends of the Earth and the Green Alliance on the grounds that it also was biased in favour of nuclear power.
The consultations were all carried out on the same day, September when selected people went through a 207-page document "The Future of Nuclear Power" in nine public meetings organised by a specially commissioned polling organisation.
Unsurprisingly, they came out 45 per cent in favour of nuclear power, with 23 per cent against. The consultation, which people can also take part in on the web, does not present alternative plans if nuclear powel accepted.
New Labour has by default committed itself to nuclear power in any case, due to its inability to cut back on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the face of global warming. They are setting up a situation where the argument for nuclear power will appear unanswerable in the face of climate change, when in fact their main interest is making sure that energy supplies are "secure" - the other theme of the consultations.
It now seems likely that the government will not be con tent just to give private companies the option of building new nuclear power stations, but will seek methods "incentivise" them.
High prices in the oil and carbon emissions markets will also make the technology more attractive to the capitalists. In the USA, two new power stations have been applied for, the first application for 30 years, with government guarantees against loan defaults, and Italy has just
post-Chernobyl Droken ITS
into nuclear molalollul research.
One thing to recognise is that many environmentalists' arguments against nuclear power are weak. When weak arguments are refuted, they expose their proponents ridicule and the
Some Ol stronger arguments get ignored
Defeated proponents of such ideas can become sudden "converts" as well.
an example of this is Patrick Moore, a leader of Greenpeace up to the late 80s, who accuses his former comrades of "aban doning and logic, in favour
CuTO tion and sensationalism" wrote in The Independent "Nuclear Energy? Yes, please...
George Monbiot has a SO pointed out how many in the environment movement basically distort the facts on this issue.
While some claim nuclear power chils HOle dioxide than fossil fuel power stations, Monbiot understands that the emissions are just 2-4% of coal and gas (taking into account construction. tue enrichment. decommissioning and
Sw asle disposal. He shows that, for example, the estimate in The Ecologist that building nuclear power station uses 14 million tonnes of concrete 1s 130 times too large.
Monbiot points out that the argument that there 1s not sutficient uranium does not hold water emmer mous is an economic argument that depends on energy prices. In the earlos crust uranium and thorium, which is also fissile (and is used in India) are both more abundant than tungsten, used in tens of billions of light bulbs.
He also admits that "an accident like Chernobyl could not take place in a new nuclear power station" and he is probably right: technologies mature and people learn from previous mistakes. After all, capitalists do not want to lose such expensive pieces of kit workers ae moner mater.
Environmentalist ments that nuclear waste disposal has not been solved, are valid, as Monbiot acknowledges, but in fact the main case against nuclear power 1s economic and political, not Technical
For countries that already have nuclear weapons, these are that the ruling class wants to ensure that it maintains
tight control over its electricity generating system. system with cowed workforce under quasi-military occuused as means ponlica. trol. Secondly, maintaining the interests of a large energy sector is more important than energy
The moves to conservation. look (again) at the Severn barrage are part of the same kind of thinking.
"Energy security" is vital for the ruling class, as the dependence of the capitalist system (and us as well) on reliable electricity supply has never been greater
This was shown in the June floods in Yorkshire, when the possibility of the inundation of a substation that served the whole of Sheffield caused panic behind the scene. amongst emergency planners, while the public were kept in the dark.
Perhaps it's useful to wonder where the government's priorities lie as vou walk down your local high street, passing the chain stores with massive open entrances and heaters above blasting hot air straight
Maybe there Into une sureet should be a "consultation" about that?