The Guardian view on the party’s nuclear bet: big promises, but the big questions are still unanswered | Editorial

R.The government’s decision to invest 14.2 billion pounds in nuclear energy, in addition to the current funds, represents a return to great funding for the state for nuclear energy yet. Hinkeli Point CWith funding from the private sector, it was hacked, delayed and costs. It is also a decisive transformation in energy policy. The ministers have great hopes in renaissance nuclear energy. Ed Miliband, the Minister of Energy, described the possibility of a new reactor in Sizeweell C, as well as new funds to develop the reactor of integration research units, as the “Golden Age”. This was a great choice of words from the smallest sound in the cabinet.

The advice of the government’s recent climate change committee took a more restricted look at the nuclear, which Industry Drou anger. Mr. Miliband’s commitment to renewable energy is not in doubt. The government made good progress and solar energy – although canceling the marine wind project was a step back. The nucleus aims to complete support for renewable energy sources and accelerate the transition away from gas. This, at least, is the theory, and the Labor Party’s bets reflect a broader shift throughout Europe. The other part of the account conducted by the ministers, including Rachel Reeves – whose administration issued this is jobs. Sizewell C is expected to employ 1000 people, including 1500 trainees.

Rolls-Royce SMR overcame the competition to become the first company in the UK to try to build reactors from manufactured units. Although this technology is still not proven, the UK has a busy record for this type of manufacturing from what it is in the large infrastructure specified for the site. With this vote of confidence in British business, the Labor Party hopes to obtain its own batch of voters, and take skeptical climate at the same time. But one does not have to be hostile to nuclear weapons to know that big questions are still unlawful. The cost is the most obvious, with nuclear energy much more expensive than the wind – although the last price is high. Hinkley Point C Somerset may cost double The expected original price. It seems that the ministers are convinced that things will be better in the future, but it is difficult to know the reason.

Waste and safety are the other two problems perennial with nuclear that are often reduced. Currently, a lot of current nuclear waste is stored in the UK at Sellafield in Cumbria. But safety risks have been raised about this site, and it is not always a solution. The other issue is the relationship with the defense and the way in which investment in civil nuclear plans can provide a hidden subsidy for the army. Another question is the role of technology companies. It seems that the initial decision to invest in small unit reactors (SMRS) coincides with the efforts made to tighten artificial intelligence. Datacentres appeared unlimited to power Donald Trump to throw his weight behind New New New.

In the case of climatic emergency, there is a state of nuclear energy as part of the non -carbon power system. But Al -Nawawi alone will not provide zero zero; It should be part of a wider coherent strategy that includes energy efficiency and renewable energy. The ministers, for example, must have more striking green building rules to reach zero. The conservative relaxation approach to the organization, despite their commitment with the purpose of legally binding, was shameful. What is clear is that the ministers need to explain this week’s decisions in more detail than they have so far.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our messages section, please click here.