Nuclear Power

The Party's position is simply that the market should decide. There should be zero subsidies (direct or indirect) for nuclear, and nuclear providers must demonstrate an ability to cover future costs of waste disposal and decommissioning. My view – shared by almost all the energy experts I’ve consulted - is that there can be no new nuclear power without government support. There never has been.

Any money the government is willing to invest in energy should be spent in areas that will deliver the greatest returns. That’s not nuclear. It has been calculated by the Rocky Mountain Institute that a pound invested in energy efficiency for instance buys seven times more solution than a pound invested in nuclear.

Subsidies should be for start up, immature technologies, which is why we will introduce Germany’s Feed-In-Tarrifs. Under the German system anyone generating electricity from solar PV, wind or hydro is guaranteed a payment of four times the market rate. The system boosts take-up by consumers by reducing the payback times on such investments to less than 10 years - compared with 25 or 30 years in Britain. As a result, Germany has 200 times as much solar energy as Britain, and a flourishing renewable energy sector.

I do think it’s worth putting nuclear in context. It provides only 18% of our electricity, and electricity is only a small part of the energy we use. Heat is more significant. It is a big political issue, but it has been blown out of proportion in terms of its actual importance. Dependence on Russia for instance is principally a heat issue - not an electricity issue, and would not be solved by nuclear.

• All images and text Copyright © 2013 Zac Goldsmith
  Promoted by David Newman on behalf of Zac Goldsmith, both of 372 Upper Richmond Road West, London SW14 7JU
  Site by: NM Consulting :: W3C Valid Markup :: W3C Valid CSS
• Privacy
• Goto Top