High energy prices, cold weather snaps, rising emission levels, depeleting fossil fuel stocks and concerns over security of fuel supplies perhaps conveniently helped push new-build nuclear capacity back on to Britain’s energy agenda. At the back end of 2005, and ahead of the announced Energy Review, Tony Blair was reported to have been convinced over the need for building more nuclear capacity as the only way for Britain to meet its energy needs and stick to climate change targets.

However, the conclusions from the Governments own independent advisory body, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), appears to counter this view. In its recent report, submitted as part of the Governments consultation process on the UK’s future energy strategy, the SDC said that the risks associated with nuclear outweighed the benefits, specifically:

- currently no long-term storage of waste solutions;

- economics of new-build still highly uncertain;

- would lock UK into centralised distribution system just as more flexible options such as micro generation become available;

- undermine the drive for energy efficiency; 

- difficult to deny other countries nuclear programme while UK pursues its own.

In addition, doubling nuclear capacity would only lead to an 8% reduction in CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2035, while demand reduction, renewables, more efficient use of fossil fuels, carbon capture and energy storage technologies could all help the country meet its emission reduction targets. The SDC suggest that while nuclear is an option, it is not an absolute necessity. With the results of the Energy Review due to be published this summer, it will be interesting to see whether the Government will take on board these new conclusions, or whether or not it has already reached its own. As an aside, results of a recent ICM survey in Scotland showed that 82% wanted the Scottish Executive to decide on the nuclear question while only 31% trusted Westminster to tell them the truth about nuclear safety!