Play Safe, Go Nuclear
Last week in Westminster the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, of which I am member, had two meetings on issues of great importance to the future of this country. Firstly, on Tuesday we took evidence on the security of the Britain’s energy supply from major players in the electricity industry, including the UK Executive Director of the National Grid based in Sindlesham. Secondly, in the light of the recent Fukushima incident in Japan, we had the opportunity to talk to Dr Mike Weightman, HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations. To my mind, the outcomes of both meetings confirmed my long-held belief that Britain needs to replace its ageing nuclear power stations and, indeed, increase the number we have.
Nuclear power stations in this country presently provide almost 20% of our electricity. Sadly, all but one is due to be closed by 2023. For too long, the last Labour government had a woeful energy policy and consequently delayed the nuclear replacement decision for too long. Hence, we are now in the precarious position of seeing our dependence on imported fossil fuels, especially gas, increasing to meet the deficit in power generation that will inevitably occur. Furthermore, in the light of the recent Fukushima incident and the subsequent German decision to phase out all of their nuclear power stations, some people in Britain are calling for a delay or postponement in the building of our next generation of nuclear power stations. I think that this would be a disastrous decision for Britain to make, not least because to do so would seriously imperil our economic future. That is why I am very pleased the Coalition government is continuing to press ahead with its nuclear power station replacement scheme.
Undoubtedly, there are those people who worry about the safety of nuclear power, particularly following the recent Japanese earthquake and the Chernobyl disaster. I have looked at the evidence of the health implications of the Chernobyl incident in 1986. On closer analysis, public perception seems to be out of step with the realities on the ground in the former Soviet Union. In 2006 the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that, except for thyroid cancers, in the ‘highly contaminated areas’ no increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia was observed. The increase in thyroid cancers could have been a ‘screening effect’, in that a significant proportion of so-called ‘occult’ cancers are asymptomatic and hence only detected when actively looked for (as with Chernobyl). It is fair to conclude that evidence for the recent public concern about the dangers of nuclear power is pretty thin at present.
There will be the significant energy challenges for us all in the future. It is clear that the World’s demand for electricity will continue to rise over the coming decades which will lead to aggressive competition for fast-depleting fossil fuels. Hence, I am convinced that nuclear technology has to play a significant part in Britain’s energy mix. The risks of not doing so far outweigh the opposite path.