Guardian Unlimited Politics Special Reports The lights will go out if we avoid the nuclear option, says Darling

The new trade and industry secretary expects a mix of sources - and atomic is one Terry Macalister and Patrick WintourWednesday June 28, 2006The Guardian
Alistair Darling has thrown his weight behind rebuilding the nuclear power industry and plans to use the energy review to push a fast-track planning process for atomic plants, wind farms and even transport schemes.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the new trade and industry secretary gave a blunt warning to householders and local councils that they had to support new power projects in Britain - or the lights would go out.

He also insisted there must be a long-term - preferably European - framework for pricing carbon, a measure that would make oil and gas-fired stations comparatively more expensive than renewables and nuclear.
"We run a serious risk that some day someone will go into the living room, flick the switch and and nothing will happen because we do not have the capability to generate any energy from any source at all," said Mr Darling.
Britain needed the widest possible energy mix and the minister did not accept that support for one form of energy damaged development of another, as some in the renewable sector have claimed in their arguments against increasing nuclear capacity.
Faced by the twin objectives of energy security plus lowering carbon emissions to counter global warming, Britain had little option, he said, but to act as the current fleet of atomic stations came to the end of their lives.
He said: "No solutions are easy. One of the factors in nuclear is that the costs have got to be met. We know it is expensive but to have an energy review that says we are not going to do it, especially given the carbon problem we face, does not make any sense at all."
Pointing out that the UK is poised to go from 19% to 6% of electricity being generated by nuclear power within 10 years, Mr Darling added: "No one is talking about a French-style nuclear provision, where they are up at 80%, but given where we are at the moment, with our increasing dependency on imports on gas ... then we need to look seriously at all options, and nuclear ... does produce substantially less carbon than its gas counterpart."
The minister accepts that atomic power remains controversial and costly but believes some of the objections are outdated and a different perspective is needed now. "I was certainly sceptical about it 25 years ago, which was roughly the last time we built a nuclear power station. What has changed is that very few people realised at that time the dangers of climate change.
"If you want to be frightened about anything, you want to be frightened about the impact of climate change. It's worrying for our generation - it's even more worrying for the generation coming behind," he argued.
Nuclear lobby
Mr Darling, who is poised to present the final recommendations of the long-awaited energy review to Tony Blair next month, will delight the nuclear lobby with his clear support for atomic power. He also revealed that the energy review would take the form of a green paper, followed by a white paper and possibly some legislation on planning and licensing.
But his determination to act on the problems of drawn-out planning inquiries will also hasten private-sector interest in coming forward with new nuclear - and wind - plants. "I believe the mix of energy generation has served us well in this country but whatever form of generation plant you come forward with, whether it is large or small, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be a planning objection.
"The process will be dragged out and it may well take several years. Now, in a situation where nearly a third of our power plants are going to need replacing in the next 20 to 30 years we just can't have a situation where we do not have the ability to generate power.
"Whether it's nuclear, whether it's gas, whether it's onshore renewable or offshore renewable, the problem is the same. So it's quite clear in my mind we have to have a more sensible approach. It does not only apply to energy; we have this problem in transport, we have this problem in housing.
"People must be allowed their day in court to say they don't like it and object to it but in some inquiries it has sometimes taken between a third and a half of an inquiry to decide whether there is any need for it." Previous efforts to speed up the planning process had been driven into the sands of the House of Lords, he said, and some more substantial reform was needed.
The industry secretary pointed out that just one week after he had argued for the importance of building new gas storage facilities in Britain, a local authority turned down an application for just such a plant on the grounds that there was no need for it.
He reiterated the government's promise not to give state aid to nuclear plants: they would have to be self-standing financially and would have to bear the costs of decommissioning and waste disposal.
But Mr Darling stressed his support for a mechanism, such as the European Union trading scheme, to reflect the lack of carbon emissions in nuclear power. "I am pretty clear that one way or the other if we are serious about cutting carbon, there has to be a carbon price."
He said the economics of energy had been "changed substantially" by the rise in the cost of gas. New plants were likely to be built on existing sites, he said, and admitted that some coastal locations were at risk from rising water levels caused by global warming.
Asked whether it would be possible to pre-license nuclear plants and endorse designs of reactors being used elsewhere in the world, Mr Darling said: "That is being looked at. It's not always necessary to reinvent the wheel. In Finland, for instance, they have a pre-licensing system ... but ultimately people will be against them, people will be for them.
"What you need to make sure is that if you do decide to build a nuclear plant that it is safe and can function effectively. Now if you can do that better with a straightforward licensing system in relation to a particular kind of plant then that seems to have some sense."
The industry secretary supported the recent sale by the government of the Westinghouse nuclear design firm to the Japanese and said local skill shortages could always be made up from abroad. But he accepted that nuclear plants came wrapped with difficulties because they were so complex and involved a lot of money to build. "They are not an easy option ... no one has come forward to build one for the last 25 years," he said.
"In some ways the more difficult option, because we have to encourage people to do that, is to drive down demand for energy because that involves people doing things to houses and factories all over the country. But it can be done and has to be done," he said.
But Mr Darling stressed that the energy review was not just about nuclear power, as critics complained, and he fully supported trying to slow the demand for energy by introducing a new regulatory requirement on energy sellers to create incentives to save.
"There is also a need for all forms of energy production: combined heat and power, and local 'distributive' small-scale energy production," he said. "You do not do one or the other ... The challenge for us now is to strike the right balance between what you need to generate nationally, through conventional generation, and what we can do in a far more environmentally friendly way than we have done in the past."