Against The Grain: It's hard to see why nuclear is the favoured route' - Higher, Education - Independent.co.uk

Against The Grain: It's hard to see why nuclear is the favoured route' - Higher, Education - Independent.co.uk

So why have the Government gone nuclear, is it an energy security question- well maybe, a climate change issue a la James Lovelock, unlikely I would say. Despite the Climate Change Bill every other action of the Govt has flown in the face of their stated emissions targets- transport policy, house building policy, airport extension, bio-fuels. So what is it that draws a Labour administration, still packed with politicos who cut their teeth in CND, towards nuclear?

Well as always there is not a great conspiracy, it feels more like incompetance, inertia and short-termism -the energy portfolio is a complex one, it us also a big figures one- the cost of a power station- gas, coal or nuclear are big, and I mean BIG.

There is huge vested interests in the present centralised system, firstly of course it is easier to administer than a defused web like power infrastructure- there are a handful of big players who power and maintain the grid, it is easier to dicuss and design policy when there are say 100 decision makers rather than 100,000.

The Civil Servants at the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have a handle on a centralised system, and the power of policy advisors and implimentors is not to be overlooked in thsi process. In theory it is easier to police than a defused system- though in practise the quango that is suppose to monitor prices, Ofgem, seems to be riding the tiger rather than directing it.

There are the trade unions,particularly the old AEEU part of Unite the Union, who like their companies big- it's much easier to organise in a parastatal, or ex nationalised industry than it is a raft of smaller providers and service comapnies, and last but not least is the companies themselves, with professional lobbyists drawn from the ex politico and civil service ranks- who ensure that the number of alternatives that appear 'common sense' are kept down to the fewest possible.

On the otherside are a handful of companies such as solarcentury, NGO's such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, campaigning organisations such as CND- and a raft of completing alternative energy associations all touting slightly different solutions.

On both sides you have the media, which despite their cutting edge logos and mission statements, are on the whole conservative with a small 'c' when hammering out opinions, and who are ultimately battling for audiences and the closely related advertising revnues. Equally on both sides are the opinion formers opinion formers- the think tanks, policy units and out and put PR/lobbying companies which are equally dependent on the whole on coporate sponsorship. He who pays the piper gets to pick the tune- as Exxon and Phillip Morris can tell you.

So a variety of different cultures and vested interests support the status quo, and it is only a handful of yes, media savy, but non-mainstream voices that oppose it.

So with civil society weighted as it is, it is hardly surprising that politicians- never the bravest souls in the first place- find it difficult to steer against the wind. Even if a politician was willing to look indepth at alternatives the first place he or she turns to is the supporting civil service, and try and get them to write a viability study of a defused, micro-generation and alternative energy policy would be like pulling teeth. Secondly the supporting infrastructure doesn't exisit at teh scale necessary- so a whole new industry needs to be nurtured into being- and that takes time, a good strategy- see the previous point, and cash- not necessarily more cash than the medium term investment needed for nuclear, or for that matter gas or coal, but cash under a new heading. That takes you into the heart of the Treasury- that most conservative of Govt Departments. It also takes you to one of the shortfalls of our democratic system, as PFI has shown, politicians are unable/unwilling to take responsibility for the type pf long term financial planning that any home buyer has to when taking out a mortguage for longer than 5 years.

What does it matter if over a 25 year period solution X is more expensive than solution Y? Most minsters hold their jobs for less than 3 years, the payment of long term loans is frankly somebody elses' problem. Long term financial planning for a politician is maybe 18 months. This does not gear itself to most policy sectors, particularky it does not gear itself towards energy which needs at minimum a 25 year time frame.

So the decision to go for nuclear, while deeply disappointing, is hardly surprising from such a spineless government. Would a conservative government have made a different decision, probably not, they would have made the same decision- only maybe faster.