Add new comment

      Through the decades since the development of nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear power, there have been charges that some governments supported the peaceful use of nuclear energy in order to obtain additional funding for nuclear weapons programs. This practice was blamed on the high cost of nuclear research and the reluctance of governments to allocate sufficient funds to nuclear weapons programs.
       Now nuclear experts in the United Kingdom are saying that household electricity bills are being inflated by the government in order to provide more funding for nuclear submarines. Some say that nuclear power is so expensive that it should be replaced with much cheaper renewable energy. Others say that nuclear power generation is an important domestic source of electricity and any spending on military programs is not significant. Recently, the members of Parliament on the Business Select Committee were told by scientists at the University of Sussex that the government should be transparent about the interdependence of the civilian commercial nuclear power program and the nuclear defense industry.
       Professor Andy Stirling from the University of Sussex says that one motivation of the government for making the civilian power consumers pay more for their electricity is because it helps to support the supply chain and skills base for companies such ass Rolls Royce and Babcock which work on the construction and maintenance of nuclear submarines. He said: “It is clear that the costs of maintaining nuclear submarine capabilities are insupportable without parallel consumer-funded civil nuclear infrastructures. The accelerating competitiveness of renewable energy and declining viability of nuclear power are making this continuing dependency increasingly difficult to conceal.”
       Rolls Royce has been pressing the government to agree to develop a fleet of small modular nuclear reactors for power generation in the U.K. This civilian technology could also be used for submarines.
       A spokesperson for the U.K. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said, “We believe having a diverse energy mix is the best way of ensuing energy security while allowing us to meet our climate commitments. Nuclear has an important role to play as we transition to a low-carbon economy, but as with any technology, it must represent good value for money for the taxpayer and consumer.”
      A source on the BEIS committee told reporters that the presentation by the University of Sussex was “persuasive and well-researched.” It is expected that the committee will release the University of Sussex presentation to the public. The committed is preparing to discuss the question of whether the U.K. really needs nuclear power for energy security. Now that the actual cost of nuclear power has been made public, the debate is of greater significance.
       In the early days of nuclear power, it was claimed that electricity generated by nuclear reactors would be too cheap to meter. However, at present, the cost of electricity from offshore wind farms is about seventy dollars per megawatt as compared to an estimated price of one hundred and seventeen dollars for electricity from the Hadley Point C reactor currently under construction.
      The U.K. government finds itself in a bind. If they won’t admit the truth about the interdependence of civil and military nuclear programs, it will be accused of trying to hide an obvious connection. On the other hand, if they do admit the interdependence, then some consumer groups will reject supporting nuclear submarines with consumer electric bills.