Skip to content or view screen version

Government nuclear strategy - clear as a bell

Greenman | 29.06.2006 18:52 | Anti-militarism | Globalisation | Technology

The minister in charge of nuclear power yesterday signed the fate of new-build in the uk - effectively it is the european model

The announcement yesterday by the newly-installed DTI minister Alaister Darling that Britain should accept the solution to climate change as an inevitable programme of nuclear new-build is a final indication that we are being steered by a European agenda and that this is as much about subsidisng war and the arms industry as it is about a European power bloc.
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1807592,00.html

This follows on the heels of both Blair and Brown that we need to fast-track the planning process to meet our commitments to carbon reductions.
“Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country.” [Guardian]

British Energy, who were bailed out by the EU, ran into the trap of the opening up of energy markets six years ago which meant they had to compete on the open market. This became a point of contention with the French state owned energy giant EDF who continue to subsidise cheap electricity for export. EDF is now attempting to give reactors to the British in return for price-fixing:

 http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2164

so it was no surprise to find that BE are jumping on the fast-track bandwagon and trying to con the public into paying more for their juice. [Guardian]

“British Energy, which provides more than 20% of the UK's electricity, said it would need long-term supply contracts and quicker planning consents to justify future investment. "We could contribute to a nuclear future but only if we are assured we could create shareholder value," said chief executive Bill Colby.”

Another sign that we are following the French model is that shortly after the ‘Government-commissioned’ review by the Commission on Waste Management appeared earlier this year to reassure us that after all nuclear waste is in fact ‘safe’, Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, appears on the BBC news to say that we will only ‘move forward’ with nuclear once a ‘community’ has ‘come forward’ to offer a place to site the repository. Just like what happened in France in fact.
Indeed the European Commissions review on nuclear waste suggests:
“..a majority of European citizens (58%) would be in favour of the use of nuclear energy, while 31% would remain opposed, if the issue of radioactive waste were considered to have been resolved”
 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/waste/doc/2006_06_nucelar_waste_update_review_en.pdf

and then the question of a new European grid, paid for by guess who? – not exactly cheap either:
“Gerard Mestrallet, the chief executive of the French energy group, Suez, says the EU should invest €1,000bn (£682.7bn) in new unified grids for both electricity and gas transmission under a common energy policy.”
 http://business.guardian.co.uk/economicdispatch/story/0,,1710931,00.html

in fact the French and the Germans have been working on their new reactor design for a while now and this is the one they have sold to Finland:
 http://www.edf.fr/html/en/decouvertes/voyage/nucleaire/retour-nucleaire.html

and the European Commission energy review thinks it’s a good idea too:
“European states must give renewed impetus to a common energy policy to ensure sustainable and secure supplies, the European commission said today.”

 http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1726402,00.html

so all in all there seems to be a concensus that Europe needs to get together to sort out its nuclear supply – but not as you might imagine to ensure bomb-material, but as Mr. Darling so clearly hints, to maintain a controllable electricity supply that will qualify for massive subsidies to prop up the energy intensive arms industries, among others:
“He also insisted there must be a long-term - preferably European - framework for pricing carbon, a measure that would make oil and gas-fired stations comparatively more expensive than renewables and nuclear”

Lastly, if you’ve got time, check out this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky which amply outlines the way in which British arms manufacturers and German-French energy companies have an interest in promoting home-grown technologies – not to mention the euro, of course!
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490

Greenman