Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 10:47 AM Aug 2015

Shining a light on Britain’s nuclear state: Trident and the nuclear energy boondoggle

http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/aug/07/shining-a-light-on-britains-nuclear-state

Shining a light on Britain’s nuclear state

Debates over Trident and energy policy are rarely joined up. But are there deeper links between Britain’s nuclear deterrent and its commitment to nuclear power?

Phil Johnstone and Andy Stirling
Friday 7 August 2015 06.58 EDT

Two momentous issues facing David Cameron’s government concern nuclear infrastructure. The new secretary of state for energy, Amber Rudd, recently confirmed her enthusiasm for what is arguably the most expensive infrastructure project in British history: the Hinkley Point C power station. At the same time, a decision is pressing on a similarly eye-watering commitment to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

Ostensibly distinct, both of these issues are intensely controversial, extremely expensive, agonisingly protracted, and often accompanied by vicious political rhetoric. Yet commentators rarely ask how these decisions might be connected. Could such links help to explain the strength of the UK’s nuclear lobby? Britain remains one of only a handful of countries committed to a “nuclear renaissance”, with senior government figures asserting the manifest falsehood that there is “no alternative” to nuclear power. Meanwhile, support for renewables and energy efficiency has been cut.

<snip>

Yet there may be other clues. Looking back to the New Labour era, one may lie in the remarkable flurry of activity that immediately followed a rare and brief loss of control, in which the 2003 energy white paper firmly concluded nuclear power was “unattractive” – instead backing renewables and energy efficiency.

<snip>

What followed was one of the most spectacular U-turns in recent British politics. After only three years, a cursory further energy review was completed in 2006. Despite unchanged conditions and no new arguments, this reinstated a strongly pro-nuclear policy. Although the 2006 paper was itself overturned by judicial review on the grounds of being too superficial, the Blair government retorted that any further appraisal “won’t affect the policy at all”.

<snip>

What has not been examined until now is the intense policy commotion behind the scenes during this same period on the arcane topic of submarines. By 2004, the well-funded Keep Our Future Afloat Campaign (KOFAC) was underway. Run by a consortium of nuclear industry, trade union and nuclear-dependent local authorities, this was among the country’s most effective lobby groups. Aiming to maintain a UK nuclear submarine industry, KOFAC’s activities were not confined to the military sector. It also engaged enthusiastically in energy policy consultations, highlighting the importance of a shared skills pool for the military and civilian nuclear sectors.

Evidently commissioned following the off-piste 2003 nuclear white paper, a report was produced for the ministry of defence in 2005 by RAND Europe. This detailed the risks posed to UK nuclear submarine capabilities, and the deterrent more broadly, by a depleted workforce and skills base. Aided by KOFAC, the RAND study triggered a series of related documents from MoD and other security institutions. Defence select committee inquiries were undertaken and a new white paper was produced, reaffirming the commitment to a submarine-based nuclear deterrent. At the same time, anxious parliamentary briefings appeared, new research programmes were initiated – and regulatory agencies joined the clamour on the civilian side to “keep the nuclear option open”.

Joining these efforts, submarine producer BAE Systems set up a key suppliers group to improve co-ordination among nuclear contractors. This culminated in 2009, with the government launching the Nuclear Skills Institute whose remit again quietly spans the linkages between crucial skills across civilian and defence sectors.

So the links between UK civilian nuclear power and military interests in nuclear submarines run deep. What is remarkable is the complete lack of discussion these provoke in the media, public policy documents, or wider critical debate. Yet the stakes are very high. Does the commitment to a submarine based nuclear deterrent help to explain the intensity of high-level UK support for costly, risky and slow nuclear power, rather than cheaper, quicker and cleaner renewable technologies?

<snip>

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shining a light on Britain’s nuclear state: Trident and the nuclear energy boondoggle (Original Post) bananas Aug 2015 OP
Thank you very much for highlighting this. Gumboot Aug 2015 #1

Gumboot

(531 posts)
1. Thank you very much for highlighting this.
Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:10 PM
Aug 2015

Cameron's govt (and backers) need a deafening silence to get their insane nuclear ambitions rolling.

Let's make sure Hinkley Point C never gets built. Slashing funding for renewables at this time is just plain criminal.


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Shining a light on Britai...