Safer Efficiency, Controversial Difficulty

The rules of the game have changed. Over the last couple of years, nuclear power has become safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever. Tony says it, so it must be true.

The Reverend acknowledged that there were "strongly held positions on issues such as nuclear power". This means that "About energy security and supply that will mean issues that are bound to be extremely controversial ... there are going to be difficult and controversial decisions government has got to take." However, as one would expect from the administration that gave us Iraq and PFI, "in the end it has got to do what it believes to be right in the long-term interests of the country."

The trade and industry secretary has devised a series of tests to see if nuclear power stations are now "much safer and produce less waste per unit of energy produced", as is claimed by the Reverend's personal scientific adviser, the well-known optimist Sir David King. The tests will determine whether the new power stations "can be shown to operate without subsidy, handle waste safely, and not be vulnerable to lethal terrorist attack."

The trade and industry secretary is scheduled to insist that the Reverend has not yet decided in favour of a dash for nuclear power, no matter what his chief scientific adviser may say upon the matter. The Reverend's chief scientific adviser believes that a "ballpark cost" for waste storage could be established in advance and factored into the "economic process" by the nuclear industry. He does not seem to have specified the limits of the ballpark; but the nuclear industry will, of course, tell the truth, no matter what the consequences for its own fate.

Safely, lethal and above all without subsidy are relative terms, no doubt. British Nuclear Fuels has suggested that the industry might set up a fund to cover the costs of waste disposal, but has indicated that it would prefer the government to "encourage the City to invest" in this glamorous growth industry. Thanks to market forces, consumer choice, the long-term national interest and so forth, the taxpayer spent three and a half billion installing Sizewell B, and a further fifty-six billion is the estimated cost for decommissioning existing power stations. Looks tempting.