Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): I am intuitively, perhaps ideologically, against nuclear power. I sat in on the deliberations of the Nuclear Consultation Working Group that has just issued a damning report on the government's plans to sanction a new generation of nuclear power stations (see nuclearconsult.com) with two purposes: to study in depth the issues involved and to gain an expert's eye view on the consultation exercise that the courts had demanded from government. I am now clear that my fears that the decision to go nuclear is reckless, dangerous and wasteful are justified; and equally that the consultation exercise was deeply flawed and failed to engage with the real risks and challenges that going nuclear entails.
Yet the predictable response from the pro-nuclear lobby that I have seen and heard on television, the World at One and Guardian letters page seems very plausible. Even though the working group's reply in Wednesday's Guardian is in my view crushing, it is obvious that for the majority of people the issues will seem too complex and even abstract to grapple with, and they will simply see two sets of embattled experts at odds with each other with no notion as to how the balance of argument lies.
<!-- D(["mb","\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\" size\u003d\"3\"\>Former minister Brian Wilson spoke on \u003ci\>World at One\u003c/i\> about the bias \nagainst nuclear power that had prevailed in earlier debate and professed himself \nsatisfied that government and informed opinion had at last got it right. But I \nam not clear where the governing debate took place, though it clearly was \nneither open nor deliberative. No more than the consultation exercise was.\u003cspan\> \u003c/span\>Now it is time for one of the ‘big' and \n‘tough' decisions that Gordon Brown has elected to take on all our behalfs, in \ndirect contradiction of his earlier promise of more consultative \ngovernment.\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp style\u003d\"margin:0cm 0cm 0pt\"\>\u003cfont size\u003d\"3\"\>\u003cfont face\u003d\"Times New Roman\"\> \u003c/font\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/p\>\u003cspan style\u003d\"font-size:12pt\"\>At \nthe brandy stage of an evening out with David Falcon, an international \nconsultant on governance, we began discussing the desirability of a modern \nversion of the Royal Commission to resolve ‘big' issues of energy supply, \nairport expansion, etc\u003cspan\> \u003c/span\>- that is, a \nkind of citizen's jury, made up not of ‘the great and the good', but of a decent \nbalance of specialists and lay people who could take evidence from all parties, \nquiz other specialists and experts, deliberate in public, come to a set of \nconclusions and recommendations and consult widely.\u003cspan\> \u003c/span\>Something of this kind would be \ninfinitely more valuable than either the government's new commission for major \nplanning decisions or a PM's clunking fiat. \u003c/span\>\u003c/font\>\u003c/div\>\u003c/div\>\n",0] ); //-->Former minister Brian Wilson spoke on World at One about the bias against nuclear power that had prevailed in earlier debate, and professed himself satisfied that government and informed opinion had at last got it right. But I am not clear where the governing debate took place, though it clearly was neither open nor deliberative. No more than the consultation exercise was. Now it is time for one of the ‘big' and ‘tough' decisions that Gordon Brown has elected to take on all our behalfs, in direct contradiction of his earlier promise of more consultative government.
At the brandy stage of an evening out with David Falcon, an international consultant on governance, we began discussing the desirability of a modern version of the Royal Commission to resolve ‘big' issues of energy supply, airport expansion, etc. - that is, a kind of citizen's jury, made up not of ‘the great and the good', but of a decent balance of specialists and lay people who could take evidence from all parties, quiz other specialists and experts, deliberate in public, come to a set of conclusions and recommendations and consult widely. Something of this kind would be infinitely more valuable than either the government's new commission for major planning decisions or a PM's clunking fist.
Comments
There are alternatives: cost effective, safe and within our grasp. Before I go on to explain, the biggest negative against the nuclear plan is simple and factual. If in the event it all goes wrong, how many people die and how many generations would suffer?
I have been a senior Diving supt in the north sea for many years.We overcome serious problems on a daily basis.The answers to these problems that confront us with the need for simple, safe and cost effective solutions. We are an island race, with the sea surrounding our shores. We have currents of great force generated by the tides and the shape of the sea bed. We know that farms of sub-sea turbines, strategically placed, deep enough not to be a hazard to navigation and shallow enough for cost effective maintenance, would supply all our commercial and domestic energy requirements. Coupled with the solar industry,we could in short time have these systems constructed, installed and working, generating totally green energy.
I believe that wind turbines are unsightly,ineffective and too expensive. What fool came up with idea to surround our shores with these monsters, perhaps, whoever it was, thought that we could take off and move UK to warmer climbs, if the wind blows.
Please contact me if I can be of help in any way.We used to be world leaders in so many areas of endevour, we could again. Our rulers need to have the ability to see the nose on their face.
We, offshore are made up of quite a mixed bunch.When we get time to chat we often come up with ideas, such subjects as alternate strategic airport locations, winning back land from motorways and at the same time minimising the damage to our environment, useing gas scrubbing systems which we use offshore. Simple systems which minimise land erosion from the sea without altering the course of the sea, just def fussing it. We have learnt these systems because we designed and used them over the many years of endeavour. We often wonder why there is not a think tank? When ever we have been onto derfa, there is always an army of idiots manning the phones. So,we just don't bother.We aways get the job done, we are a team. We never try to invent the wheel,we just harness known tech and good old common sense.
At least we will not have nuclear energy here in Scotland.
Thank you, Christian
Post new comment