Paul Dorfman (Warwick, University of Warwick): The way government consults with the public has significantly changed since a high court decision by Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the 2006 Energy Review consultation was "misleading", "seriously flawed", and "manifestly inadequate and unfair. The judge said that fresh discussions on the economics of new nuclear builds, and how to store the resulting radioactive waste, were needed as "consultation was a right, not a privilege". But it remains unclear whether the consultation that has just closed on the 10th Oct 2007 was a fair way of assessing people's views on nuclear power.
Firstly, the governments approach is based on recent research whose results can be read as ‘demonstrating a measure of current support within the British public for new nuclear power when framed as a partial response to climate change'. The research's minimal expectation was that ‘acceptance of nuclear energy would increase if it were viewed as contributing to climate change mitigation'. So in nine big one-day ‘deliberative events', comprising a total of 1000 people, the very real threat of climate change was pushed home. The problem is that idea that nuclear is the answer to our climate problems is a little disingenuous. This is because, in terms of UK energy - electricity generated by nuclear power represents about 5% of our total CO2 emissions.
Secondly, the information provided to the public who engaged with the consultation seems rather misleading. For instance, one consultation document claims that one of the ‘advantages' of nuclear power is that ‘it is substantially cheaper than wind generation'. Yet the Government's own figures show that the cost of wind energy is cheaper than nuclear
Thirdly, the government wants the public's assent 'in principle' to go for nuclear new-build before there has been collective, open and trustworthy discussions about the key substantive issues of nuclear waste, nuclear economics, nuclear safety, nuclear security, nuclear reactor design, and reactor siting. Narrowing the consultation process to consult on the future role of nuclear power within the UK energy supply system without dealing with all the problems that cling to this question is rather like putting the cart before the horse.
This consultation may have failed. We need a nuclear debate worthy of the name. It needs to be an open and transparent dialogue involving all key stakeholder groups. It needs to address all the broad issues that adhere to nuclear power, and give voice to those who may otherwise go unheard. It is important to hold governmental decision-makers to account for their actions. The nature of nuclear risk means that decisions that we make now may effect many future generations. Let's take more time and make sure we make the right decision.
