Nuclear white elephant is trampling on Labour's progressive energy policy

Letter sent to the Morning Star newspaper:

 

Labour’s new green energy plans are to be welcomed, with one very important caveat (“Heating will be a human right under Labour”; https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/heating-and-electricity-will-become-a-human-rights-labour-pledges  and “Star Comment" ttps://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/make-heat-and-light-human-right-labours-radical-plan-ticks-all-boxes-embargoed;May 16).

In his excellent accompanying article (“Climate Jesus verses the Pharisees”; 

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/climate-jesus-versus-pharisees),  former Labour MP and now energy and environmental advisor to Labour's shadow Treasury team - Alan Simpson,  points out climate change is the unnoticed elephant in the political choices room. And within the climate change debate, Labour’ continued support for taxpayer-subsidised, very expensive and unnecessary nuclear power, is the white elephant within the elephant!

 

In launching the new Labour energy policy, shadow  energy secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey, rightly argued that customers have  been “ripped off” by high energy prices paying for the big profits of the privatised energy companies.( https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-will-take-national-grid-hands-private-shareholders-use-make-heat-electricity-human-right-tackle-climate-change/)

Yet in backing new nuclear power plants at Hinkley C and Moorside near Sellafield, Labour are supporting guaranteed power prices being paid to future nuclear plant operators, which will be at least double the cost of electricity  produced from a range of renewables, including on and off-shore wind. The poor will asked to pay and be the losers.

Why? Labour has mistakenly bought the fake news propaganda from the nuclear industry that nuclear is good for combatting climate change because it is low or even zero-carbon emitting. But it isn’t!
 Recent and comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of greenhouse gas emissions from differing power generation technologies by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University - and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program - have indicated that nuclear CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewables.

 In a newly completed chapter in a forthcoming energy book (“Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security” in 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything [Textbook in Preparation]

(https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html)  Professor Jacobson argues cogently:

 

“There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.

 

“Overall,” he concludes, “emissions from new nuclear are 78 to178 g-CO2/kWH,  not close to 0.”

 

Aside from this essential climate change fact, nuclear power supporters also overlook the following significant problems with nuclear: the negative costs of radioactive waste management, vulnerability of coastal locations to flooding and storms, the very difficult challenges of security protection against terrorism, catastrophic accident potential  and persistent links to nuclear weapons and proliferation.

 

Wake up Rebecca!

 

Why Parliament needs to be co-located with Whitehall power

Letter sent to the Guardian:

 

 

Neither your experienced columnist Simon Jenkins ( a former editor of both the London Evening Standard and The Times) (“This grand design shows MPs have lost it,” 10 May; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/10/mps-palace-parliament-temporary) nor your correspondent Matt Dobson from Tyne and wear (letters, 11 May; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/10/dreams-of-a-modern-parliament-are-as-crumbled-as-the-palace)  understand why, for practical and cost reasons, Parliament and Government buildings have to be located very close together.

Both advocate moving the House of Commons debating chamber, in the former case, to Birmingham or Manchester, in the latter, to have a “roaming” chamber.

But Parliament is not just the debating chamber. There is crucially the library, the best political resource in the country, with many thousands of books and documents.  Most are unavailable digitally. Then there are the offices for the staff of some 650 MPs plus the over thirty  meeting rooms needed for parliamentary committees, some of which meet right up to the moment the House of Commons starts each day, some of which meet in parallel with  debates in the chamber.

The House of Commons also has a secondary mini chamber in Westminster Hall, which MPs hold precious to ensure matters pressed by constituents have a forum to be fully debated alongside the main chamber.

Unless the entire government suite of departmental headquarters were moved along with the Commons, then ministers would remain  based in Westminster with their officials, and be unable to  be called at short notice to justify government policy  decisions in the many urgent questions rightly granted by the Speaker since he  promoted this form of immediate scrutiny.

Finally, moving parliament out of Westminster is unnecessary to bring MPS closer to their constituents. Less than 100 MPS represent constituencies in or near London. The others regularly return to their constituencies each weekend and every holiday breal from Parliament, to hold surgeries, open fetes and speak at local public meetings.

There are many opportunities to “get out and see where the decisions made in the great building  on the Thames are having an effect”, as Mr Dobson puts it.

European Elections and climate change: policy rich, or policy free?

Today the Green Party launched their political Manifesto for the European Parliament elections to be held in two weeks’ time (https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/national-site/eu-2019/eu-manifesto-online-19-05-07.pdf)

 

Here are some key ecological extracts:

 

The Green Party has a comprehensive plan to put some joy back into

our politics – to get us out of the Brexit mess, to stop climate change

before it is too late and to rebuild our communities.

A vote for the Green Party in these elections is a vote to:

»» Remain in the EU, through putting the question of Brexit back to

the people and mobilising a positive, pro-European movement to

win the People’s Vote for Remain.

»» Recharge the fight against climate change, by electing MEPs who

know we need to act now to save our wildlife, our environment

and ultimately our planet from catastrophe.

Calls for real action on climate are coming

from every corner of Britain and beyond.

No country can tackle this threat alone.

We’ll deliver a renewables revolution

across the continent.

There is a Climate Emergency and we

must be Carbon Neutral by 2030.

Climate change is the defining challenge

of our times. Without addressing climate

change, humanity will create momentous

havoc and render many parts of the globe

basically uninhabitable including the EU

and the United Kingdom. But the answer

to the climate crisis does exist: Our

energy generation must be from 100%

renewable sources, we must use our

energy efficiently, phase out fossil energy

and nuclear power whilst creating quality

sustainable jobs in affected regions.

We will drive the principles, process and

practice of a just transition towards a netzero-

emissions economy. An EU carbon

budget and a carbon tax are needed to

accelerate the climate transition. We must

cut emissions fast enough to prevent

a climate catastrophe and not breach

the Paris Climate Agreement of global

temperatures not exceeding 1.5°C of

pre-industrial levels. We advocate phasing

out coal and other fossil fuels to work to

ensure we are Carbon Neutral by 2030.

Fossil and nuclear subsidies must stop

now. Europe needs to divest from fossil

fuels and to pull private and public funds

from fossil investments.

To make this transition possible, we need

to transform the transport sector and make

trains a real alternative to planes across

Europe and overcome our dependency

on polluting cars as quickly as possible.

We need to stop the increasing pollution

from aviation and to invest extensively

in regional and cross-border railway

networks. To level the playing field

between train and air traffic, flights need

to be fairly taxed. We must also understand

and act upon the whole environmental

impact of all transport options including

shipping, particularly cruise ships.

As Greens we’ve been deeply inspired by

the sight of young people fighting for their

future in the Youth Strikes for Climate and

the citizen-led Extinction Rebellion. All our

policies draw on our understanding of the

need to protect our precious planet and the

climate that allows us to live.

Green wins during 2014-2019:

»» Ensuring that the EU committed a

target that by 2030, one third of all

energy would come from renewable

sources.

»» Achieved the phasing out of palm oil as

a biofuel in transport.

»» Introduced target for Nearly Zero

Energy Buildings (NZEBs) as standard

for all buildings by 2050.

»» Strengthening the regulation on CO2

emission standards for new heavyduty

vehicles, meaning large reductions

in their CO2 emissions.

RECHARGE

THE FIGHT AGAINST

CLIMATE CHANGE

Green ambition for 2019-2024:

»» Bring forward the principles, process

and practice for the EU to be Carbon

Neutral by 2030 which includes

phasing out of all fossil fuels,

promoting energy efficiency and a

move to 100% renewables.

»» Making subsidies to fossil fuels illegal.

»» Introducing an EU-wide frequent flyer

levy and removing the tax advantages

for the aviation industry.

 

a 21st century economy

Endless growth is fuelling an

environmental crisis, whilst an out of

control financial system pushes us

closer to another disastrous crash. We’ll

reprogram the economy, investing in Green

innovation and research.

The climate crisis and the collapse in

wildlife across the world means we

need to take urgent action to change the

economy. This means changing the way

we live, work and travel but it also offers

enormous opportunities to create highskilled,

well-paid jobs right across the

country. Insulating homes or installing

sustainable infrastructure has to happen in

all our communities which means bringing

jobs back home. This is what we mean by

the Green New Deal.

Europe must become the global leader

in the just transition to a carbon-neutral

circular economy through the Green New

Deal, overcoming the austerity ideology

and ensuring economic development

that benefits everyone. This promise is of

 good work and decent jobs, sustainability,

social inclusiveness, improved crisis

resilience and stability. We want to work

in partnership with employees, unions and

businesses in order to promote economic

security. With the rapid and unrestricted

growth of the digital sector we need an

effective and independent EU authority

to supervise, control and limit the market

power of big corporations.

Europe needs a common sustainable

industrial policy where manufacturing is

sensitive to the life cycle of the products

produced and for sustainable finance

which supports ethical investment but

opposes greenwashing. The development

of adequate infrastructure has to be a

high priority and emphasis must be put

on research and eco-innovation. The

development of digital technology and

clean technology shall go hand in hand,

guided by societal needs and by the

international community’s Sustainable

Development Goals. Industrial deregulation

and trade agreements must not

be allowed to undermine or stand in the

way of environmental and social progress.

The next five years will see big changes

in the way we work, with automated

technology displacing many from their

jobs. Greens are prepared to take on the

power of the digital giants to challenge

their monopoly position. This is essential to

ensure value that comes from automation

benefits us all, rather than being

channelled into the pockets of the superrich.

Green wins 2014-2019:

»» The Greens, together with partners

built up a coalition in the European

Parliament against the Investor-

State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)

mechanism in free trade agreements.

ISDS mechanisms, which were made

famous by the failed TTIP treaty, are

private tribunals, which largely privilege

big corporations against states who

may wish to regulate them.

»» Thanks to the Greens, for the first

time in Europe, firms involved in the

extraction and trade of conflict minerals

will be obliged to check whether

their supply chain has links to armed

conflicts and human rights abuses.

»» Thanks to the Greens, the Parliament

will negotiate for compulsory criteria

on labour and environmental standards

in EU Trade Agreements, paving the

way for a UN binding instrument on

business and human rights.

Green ambition for 2019-2024

»» An effective and independent EU

authority to supervise the digital sector

in order to control and limit the market

power of big corporations.

»» An EU-wide Green New Deal to

accelerate the sustainability transition

and create high-skilled jobs in all our

communities.

»» An upgrade of EU competition law to

ensure that the gains from automation

are shared fairly.

 

 

Meanwhile the newly created Brexit Party launched its European elections campaign earlier this week, but its self-appointed leader, Nigel Farage said they had no manifesto, and would only reveal their policies at the  end of July, 6  weeks after the election.

Vote for a policy rich or policy-free party if you wish!

Nuclear disarmament diplomacy and the UK

Letter sent to the Financial Times:

 

Your report on the continuing strong support on the United Kingdom\s nuclear submarine fleet (“Divisions over nuclear submarine deterrent remain wide on 50^th anniversary,” Financial Times, 3 May 2019;  https://www.ft.com/content/318b4582-6c3d-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d) also included  mention of opposition to the religious service celebrating the work of nuclear submariners and their nuclear weapons systems. held at Westminster Abbey. on 3 May

 

The day before your article, the United States Ambassador Robert Wood, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament told the opening session of the UN Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) preparatory committee (prepcom) for its next review  conference:

  “The United States is committed to making progress on achieving a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT. Our commitment is longstanding and serious, building on past arms reductions with a readiness to engage in negotiations that deliver real security to the American people and our allies, as well as advance our collective nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. (http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/21491922/usa-cl-1.pdf)

If the Trump Administration, with its routine bellicose diplomatic posture, can make such a statement to this important diplomatic planning conference, why should the UK, with its own decades- long history of constructive involvement in security diplomacy, not be able to follow suit?

The impossible fantasy of carbon-free nuclear power

The nearly 300 page long ( plus supplementary annexes) Net Zero – Technical report by Government advisors the Committee on Climate Change [CCC] (https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Net-Zero-Technical-report-CCC.pdf) was released on Thursday, with significant media coverage.

(Edie 2 May 2019: https://www.edie.net/news/9/Climate-emergency-what-is-it/; Times 3 May  
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-grandfather-winston-churchill-did-not-leave-jobs-half-done-we-must-finish-the-climate-job-ss28zh53x; The Conversation 2 May
https://theconversation.com/new-net-zero-emissions-target-wont-end-uks-contribution-to-global-warming-heres-why-116386; Aled Jones: The Conversation, 2 May
https://theconversation.com/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-or-2025-depends-how-you-think-politics-works-116335; BBC 2 May; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48134251; The i News 2 May;https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/how-the-political-parties-are-shaping-up-on-the-environment/; Telegraph 2  May;  www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/05/02/three-cheers-climate-committee-no-cost-zero-emissions/; Independent 2 May https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-report-greenhouse-gas-carbon-emissions-technology-electric-cars-a8893666.html; Financial Times, 3 May 2019
https://www.ft.com/content/c9ee1c58-6c3f-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d; Solar Power Portal 2 May; www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/net_zero_report_calls_for_quadrupling_of_low_carbon_power_by_2050|)

Easier in the week, on Monday and Tuesday, I attended the 14^th annual get together of the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF), held in Prague. https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/14th-european-nuclear-energy-forum-2019-apr-29_en). Initiated by a decision of the European Council, it is held in alternate years in the Czech and Slovak capital cities.

I spoke critically on Small Modular Reactors(SMRs) at last year’s ENEF meeting in Bratislava. (http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nuclear-SMR-promoters-must-face-up-to-some-inconvenient-truths.pdf)

This year around 250 attended, mostly men dressed expensively in ties and grey suits, with a small number of female participants. It felt like being inside the Lions’ den of true nuclear believers, two of which opened the event: Andrej Babiš, Prime Minister of host country, the Czech Republic, and Peter Pellegrini, Prime Minister of neighbouring state, Slovakia.

Both are outspoken cheerleaders for nuclear power, the former claiming “nuclear is emission –free” and the latter asserting “nuclear does not produce emissions.” At the following press conference I asked both to justify their claims.

Mr Pellegrini replied arguing it is unfair ro  say that nuclear power  emits CO2- you could equally say electric cars do too. Mr Babiš added “After 2050 [the date set by the European Commission to achieve zero carbon emissions], should  we ban all cowsbecaus ewe wanto achieve net  a net-zero carbon emissions world?”

Romania’s Energy Minister – the splendidly named Anton Anton – subsequently qualified the benefits of nuclear as carbon-cleaner generator, describing it more accurately as “lower carbon.” Later in the afternoon expert panel session on the EC’s 2050 Long-Term Energy and Carbon Emissions Strategy, Pierre-Jean Coulin, President of TEN section of the European Economic and Social Committee - whom he controversially claimed represented  EU Civil Society – claimed “nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases;” Markku Markkula, the first vice president of the European Committee of the Regions added “Nuclear power has a long lasting role as a climate friendly power generator;” while Yves Desbazeille, Director-General of EU nuclear lobby group FORATOM, described nuclear as “carbon-free.”

These contributors undermined their descriptions as experts by peddling this  fake news, one after another. Another panelist, emeritus Professor Ulrich Samm, Director of the Institute for Energy and Climate Research Jûlich (in Germany) , rightly stressed the importanc eof presenting accurate and factual information the public.

Taking this sensible proposition as my cue, I asked in the Q& A session why so many  panelists had inaccurately described nuclear as carbon free, when the full production chain w should be considered, from uranium mining, milling, transport, enrichment,  fuel fabrication, spent nuclear fuel storage and final long-term  waste management – all of which contribute to carbon emissions, enrichment especially so.

Responding, Thorsten Herdan, Director-General at the German  Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, agreed with me that the nuclear fuel supply chain really needs to be “fully CO2 foot-printed.”

What is the UK government’s climate change advisor’s view?

 

So how does the UK Committee on Climate Change characterize nuclear‘s carbon contribution in its path-breaking report this week? I have gone through the text for the  mentions of nuclear. They are collected together below in the order they appear

Chapter 2: Power and hydrogen production

We find that emissions from the UK's electricity system can be reduced to almost zero whilst meeting increased electricity demands from the transport and heat sectors, potentially doubling the size of today's electricity system. Our findings in part reflect new research on the impact of heat pumps and electric vehicles on the UK's electricity system.

Reducing electricity emissions close to zero will require sustained and increased deployment of renewables and possibly nuclear power and the decarbonisation of back-up generation

 

Background. Power sector emissions (which are almost all CO2) come from burning coal and gas for electricity generation. The UK power sector was 15% of UK emissions in 2017 (73MtCO₂e), 64% below 1990 levels. Supply of renewable power has grown rapidly in the last decade, and combined with nuclear, over half of UK electricity now comes from low-carbon sources.

 

 

Costs and benefits. A near zero-carbon power system costs about the same as a high carbon power system in 2050, whilst providing co-benefits which include improved air quality and low-carbon industrial opportunities. Although nuclear, CCS and hydrogen have higher costs, particularly for peak generation, that is outweighed by the cost savings from low-cost renewables and increased system flexibility. We count the costs of providing low-carbon hydrogen in the sectors that use it.

 

2.Reducing emissions from the power sector

(a) The current role of low-carbon sources

In 2017, 52% of electricity was supplied from low-carbon sources, up from 23% in 1990:

•21% of electricity generation was from nuclear power

•19% was from variable renewable sources such as wind and solar

•11% was supplied by bioenergy (9%) and hydro power (2%)

•The remaining 48% was supplied by fossil-fuelled power generation (41% gas, 7% coal)

 

The majority of the UK’s 9 GW of nuclear power plants are set to retire by the early 2030s, limiting the pace of power decarbonisation over this period. Without these nuclear reactors, low-carbon electricity generation would have been just 33% in 2017 (100 TWh, of 300 TWh total generation). Without additional low-carbon generation, it is likely that existing gas-fired power plants will make up the shortfall in electricity generation, increasing emissions.

 

 

CCC suggest “Further new build nuclear plants and CCS power plants could also fill the shortfall in low-carbon generation over this period”.

 

It adds under (d) Options for reducing emissions further

“Reducing emissions towards net-zero will require continued deployment of renewables and possibly nuclear power and other low-carbon sources such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen11, along with avoiding emissions by improving energy efficiency or reducing demand.”

 

Nuclear and CCS

'Firm' power is production which can be scheduled with confidence well in advance and may continue to play an important role in the UK's power sector. 'Mid-merit' power is provided by power stations who are able to flexibly adjust their output over short periods of time (e.g. under an hour). Power system modelling suggests that deployment of firm and mid-merit low-carbon power will continue to be important and can usefully complement variable renewable power, particularly if heat is electrified.15

Nuclear power and gas or bioenergy power stations fitted with CCS could provide firm and mid-merit low-carbon power, with significant deployment potential.

•The ETI has identified potential for up to 35 GW of nuclear capacity on existing nuclear sitesin the UK. The total could be higher if Small Modular Reactors can also be deployed on non-nuclear sites.16

16 ETI (2015) The role for nuclear within a low-carbon energy system.  

 

CCC adds : neighbouring European countries have achieved sustained build outs of large power plant fleets, such as France's 5 GW/year rollout of nuclear power in the 1980s.

 

(But note, the French nuclear power generation industry has

suffered from a unique atomic malaise:  ‘a negative learning curve’ ie the more experience it has with nuclear, the less efficient its performance has been in both construction and operation

 

 

 

The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing

Author links open overlay panelArnulfGrubler^ab

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.003

 

|(Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 9, September 2010, Pages 5174-5188)

 

Abstract

The paper reviews the history and the economics of the French PWR program, which is arguably the most successful nuclear-scale up experience in an industrialized country. Key to this success was a unique institutional framework that allowed for centralized decision making, a high degree of standardization, and regulatory stability, epitomized by comparatively short reactor construction times.

Drawing on largely unknown public records, the paper reveals for the first time both absolute as well as yearly and specific reactor costs and their evolution over time. Its most significant finding is that even this most successful nuclear scale-up was characterized by a substantial escalation of real-term construction costs. Conversely, operating costs have remained remarkably flat, despite lowered load factors resulting from the need for load modulation in a system where base-load nuclear power plants supply three quarters of electricity.

The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience.

 

 

Contracts for renewables and the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point are set to increase low-carbon generation by 69 TWh and increasing low-carbon generation to 46% by 2030(compared to the 33% share if retiring nuclear plants were not replaced).

 

What can professional energy academics inform us?

 

More recent and comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of greenhouse gas emissions from differing power generation technologies by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University - and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program - have indicated that nuclear CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewables. He is very qualified for such analysis, being also Senior Fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy, and at the Woods Institute for the Environment, He  has developed computer models to study the effects of fossil fuel and biomass burning on air pollution, weather, and climate

 

Prof Jacobson's career has also focused on better understanding air pollution and global warming problems and developing large-scale clean, renewable energy.

 

In a newly completed chapter in a forthcoming energy book (,Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security In 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything [Textbook in Preparation]

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html)  Professor Jacobson argues cogently:

 

“There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. However, all plants also emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.

• On top of that, because all nuclear reactors take 10-19 years or more between planning and operation vs. 2-5 year for utility solar or wind, nuclear causes another 64-102 g-CO2/kWh over 100 years to be emitted from the background grid while consumers wait for it to come online or be refurbished, relative to wind or solar.

• Overall, emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.”

 

And finally….

Closing the House of Commons full debate on energy and climate change, initiated by Labour - and opened by its leader, Jeremy Corbyn - held on 1 May, Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, told MPs: “the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, (Claire Perry) and I commissioned the Committee on Climate Change, after the Paris accord, to advise us on precisely how we can reflect this raised ambition in our targets. …We did not ask for that advice in order to ignore it; we intend to act on it, and we are proud of the progress we have made.”

But he made no specific mention of Government support for nuclear power by the Cabinet minister responsible. It was, however, revealingly mentioned by Conservative MP for Taunton Deane, Rebecca Pow who said she “used to be anti-nuclear, actually, although I am not anymore because it is low carbon.”

And finally, British ministers proved as ignorant as their Czech and Slovak counterparts did in Prague earlier, in a debate on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the House of Lords on 2 May, energy minister Lord Henley asserted to his fellow peers: “we remain committed to nuclear power. I accept that we will not  ​have the Moorside development in Cumbria that we were hoping for, nor the Wylfa development, but we continue to believe that there is a role for nuclear power. We continue to get considerable amounts of energy from nuclear power.” (https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-05-02/debates/E78F2663-7606-497F-95C3-7218F4F6D092/ReducingGreenhouseGasEmissions)