It's now official. Blair wants a new generation of nuclear reactors. The energy review is over and, disappointing as it may be, the conclusion won't come as a surprise to anyone who has been following recent events. The review has been a farce from the beginning: "a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the Prime Minister took some time ago," according to the chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee.
But Blair's obsession with nuclear power hasn't just undermined the energy review process; it has also undermined the review's own commitments to renewables and efficiency.
"Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations built," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace executive director, "and that means anything substantial in this review that supports clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair remains Prime Minister. You can't roll out new nuclear power stations and build widespread sustainable energy projects. The reality is that nuclear sucks up all the money. There is an enormous radioactive cloud hanging over this energy review which threatens to drown any positive moves on decentralised energy, renewables and energy efficiency."
Blair's basic assumption - that nuclear power and renewables can work side by side - is fatally flawed; nuclear power doesn't complement renewable and efficiency - it undermines it.
And it's not just Greenpeace who says so. In 2003 at the announcement of the Energy White Paper, Patricia Hewitt (then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry) said:
"It would have been foolish to announce&that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment in both energy efficiency and renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now."
(Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32)
Nuclear power is the epitome of a centralised energy system. True energy efficiency depends on a decentralised system. The vast financial, political, institutional and technical investment needed for new nuclear power stations will not only suck investment away from renewables and efficiency, it will also lock the UK into its current, criminally wasteful, centralised energy system.
Blair can't have it both ways. If nuclear power is a core part of the UK's energy policy, so too is the archaic, centralised system upon which it depends. If decentralised energy is seen as key, the energy market and regulatory framework must be overhauled to encourage efficiency and renewables.
Blair claims that we need nuclear power. It will, he says, help to cut UK carbon emissions and ensure energy security. Building 10 new nuclear reactors would only deliver a four per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2024: far too little too late to combat climate change. And nuclear power's overall contribution to total UK energy demand is so tiny (only 3.6 per cent) that it can only marginally affect energy security.
The real answer to energy security and climate change is decentralised energy. "A commitment to decentralised energy - making power generation localised and vastly more efficient - would have been a positive development," says Tindale, "as would have been real support for renewable energy projects. Instead we get more talk. The pro-nuclear small print in this review shows that Blair is a roadblock to reform."
Thanks to Blair, New Labour is now the only mainstream party clinging to nuclear power as a central part of their energy policy. The Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Ken Livingstone and David Milliband all understand that, as Cameron said last week, "the future is decentralised". Recent studies and reports have shown decentralised energy to be cheaper, cleaner and more secure than nuclear power. And nuclear power is increasingly seen not only as dirty and dangerous, but also as irrational and archaic.
So why would a man so obsessed with his legacy choose to leave a legacy like this one? He's done a U-turn on nuclear power but there won't be a chance to do a U-turn on climate change. The 160,000 people who die as a result of climate change every year can't be brought back to life. The radioactive waste created as a consequence of Blair's decision will be kicking around on earth for up to a million years.
"David Cameron, David Miliband and the Lib Dems all understand decentralised energy," says Tindale. "When Tony Blair leaves office Britain can get on with tackling climate change and fostering energy security without reaching for the technologies of the past. Blair fixed his own energy review to make it a manifesto for nuclear power. With Blair in Government, the chances of actually addressing climate change and ensuring energy security diminish by the day."
