This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/nuclear-power-limits-compromise-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Nuclear power: limits of compromise Nuclear power: limits of compromise
(2 days later)
Honest and informed people disagree passionately about nuclear power. Supporters maintain that nuclear power offers affordable low-carbon electricity and is thus a vital tool in attempts to curb climate change. Opponents say the technology is inherently too dangerous and that the financial and environmental costs of waste are almost infinite. Climate change has forced many who were against nuclear power to reconsider their position in the argument. A disaster like the Fukushima meltdown, which took place in a hi-tech, risk-averse democratic society, can swing the argument back in the other direction in an instant, for compelling reasons.Honest and informed people disagree passionately about nuclear power. Supporters maintain that nuclear power offers affordable low-carbon electricity and is thus a vital tool in attempts to curb climate change. Opponents say the technology is inherently too dangerous and that the financial and environmental costs of waste are almost infinite. Climate change has forced many who were against nuclear power to reconsider their position in the argument. A disaster like the Fukushima meltdown, which took place in a hi-tech, risk-averse democratic society, can swing the argument back in the other direction in an instant, for compelling reasons.
That argument remains unresolved. Public opinion fluctuates with the news. Green voices find it harder to get a serious hearing. After Fukushima, global anti-nuclear sentiment was high. In Germany, it prompted Angela Merkel, who is both a scientist and a politician, into a U-turn commitment to phase out nuclear power by 2022. More recently, public opinion has fallen back, in this country at least. A recent poll found almost half the population in favour of government investment in nuclear power, with the rest either opposed or don't-knows. Yet enthusiasm for renewables remains at much higher levels than support for nuclear.That argument remains unresolved. Public opinion fluctuates with the news. Green voices find it harder to get a serious hearing. After Fukushima, global anti-nuclear sentiment was high. In Germany, it prompted Angela Merkel, who is both a scientist and a politician, into a U-turn commitment to phase out nuclear power by 2022. More recently, public opinion has fallen back, in this country at least. A recent poll found almost half the population in favour of government investment in nuclear power, with the rest either opposed or don't-knows. Yet enthusiasm for renewables remains at much higher levels than support for nuclear.
Trying to resolve these dilemmas is anything but straightforward, because this is a policy area where compromise is difficult. On Sunday at their conference in Glasgow, the Liberal Democrats performed their own U-turn, in the opposite direction to Mrs Merkel's. Having been for decades Britain's principal nuclear-power sceptics, the party eased themselves into the position of conditional supporters, leaving only the Greens as outright opponents. The motion adopted in Glasgow accorded nuclear power stations a "limited role" in power supply on condition that "concerns about safety, disposal of radioactive waste and cost" are properly addressed and provided there is no public subsidy for new-build.Trying to resolve these dilemmas is anything but straightforward, because this is a policy area where compromise is difficult. On Sunday at their conference in Glasgow, the Liberal Democrats performed their own U-turn, in the opposite direction to Mrs Merkel's. Having been for decades Britain's principal nuclear-power sceptics, the party eased themselves into the position of conditional supporters, leaving only the Greens as outright opponents. The motion adopted in Glasgow accorded nuclear power stations a "limited role" in power supply on condition that "concerns about safety, disposal of radioactive waste and cost" are properly addressed and provided there is no public subsidy for new-build.
Politically, the argument for a mix of energy sources is sensible. The problem is that this does not withstand much serious scrutiny. How limited is a limited role? How can concerns about safety be addressed when Fukushima – where the cleanup is costing tens of billions of pounds and is likely to take 40 years – remains a living example of the difficulty of addressing them in practice? And how can nuclear power ever be built except by public subsidy when commercial companies have fled the nuclear scene and the only serious players are those backed by the Chinese, Russian and French governments? None of these questions is easily answered, but the Lib Dems took a bad decision on Sunday, which leaves the public debate all the poorer.Politically, the argument for a mix of energy sources is sensible. The problem is that this does not withstand much serious scrutiny. How limited is a limited role? How can concerns about safety be addressed when Fukushima – where the cleanup is costing tens of billions of pounds and is likely to take 40 years – remains a living example of the difficulty of addressing them in practice? And how can nuclear power ever be built except by public subsidy when commercial companies have fled the nuclear scene and the only serious players are those backed by the Chinese, Russian and French governments? None of these questions is easily answered, but the Lib Dems took a bad decision on Sunday, which leaves the public debate all the poorer.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.