Back in the summer of 2001 there was much talk of a nuclear renaissance. Brian Wilson, a passionate advocate of nuclear power, was appointed Energy Minister and Tony Blair made several supportive statements.
Wilson told anyone who would listen that nuclear power was essential to tackle climate change and that renewables, while all very well, would never deliver significant amounts of electricity. The scientific establishment, in the shape of the Royal Society and the Government's Chief Scientist, David King, weighed in with the "scientific" opinion that climate change goals could not be met without new nuclear stations - despite the fact that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution had published scenarios showing exactly how it could be done.
In February 2003, the long-awaited energy white paper was launched. Blair gave a speech about the need to cut carbon emissions by 60% (the target suggested by the Royal Commission) and the central role of technology in delivering that. He did not make a single reference to nuclear power. He gave an unprecedentedly upbeat assessment of the potential of renewables, and spoke in ringing terms about the role of hydrogen in delivering clean energy.
The white paper itself had some words about keeping the nuclear option open, but no measures to help the industry. The industry had lobbied hard for more subsidy, exemption from the Climate Change Levy, reduction in their local authority rate bill, just about anything that would enable them to stay afloat economically. They had demanded special planning treatment - so-called pre-licence agreements - to help circumvent local opposition. They failed to get anything. The spin around the white paper launch was about the end of nuclear power, and the commentary in the following day's papers was about whether the industry was completely dead, or just very nearly. No wonder Bernard Ingham, the country's best-known nuclear advocate, was incandescent with rage.
At one level the outcome on renewables was disappointing. The Treasury wouldn't let the DTI set a firm target of 20% by 2020, which is what the Government's internal cabinet office think tank had recommended. Instead, there is an 'aspiration' to reach 20% by that date, which is clearly weaker. Greenpeace had been calling for a minimum 30% target by 2020, and published Sea Wind East, a detailed study on how this could be achieved at reasonable cost. But there are some specific measures to boost renewables: a promise to sort out the planning system, which is what has been holding wind up in particular, and some new money. More importantly, removing the threat of new nuclear stations means that future public subsidy and political will can concentrate on genuinely clean energy sources - wind power, wave power, solar power, tidal stream, biomass - as well as achieving radical reductions in energy use and promoting combined heat and power.
The last word belongs to Brian Wilson. In a radio interview on the day the white paper was published, he said: "investment in nuclear would be an expensive distraction from the real priority of supporting renewables and energy efficiency". Thank you Brian. That's exactly what Greenpeace has been saying all along. We now have a window of five years or so to show that renewables can deliver, and kill off the nuclear industry once and for all.
