Like global warming? You can thank nuclear power protesters. Since the 1970s, a full-scale public relations war on nuclear power has been waged, meaning a growing population became more reliant on fossil fuels instead of zero-emissions nuclear power.
Now, a formal complaint about subsidies for nuclear power has been sent to the European Commission (DG Competition). If it is upheld, it unlikely that any new nuclear power stations will be built in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. The complaint may be followed by legal action in the courts or actions by politicians to reduce or remove subsidies for nuclear power. The complaint has been prepared by lawyers for the Energy Fair group, with several other environmental groups and environmentalists.
One of the largest of the four subsidies in the complaint is the low cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents. "Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured" says Energy Fair. Research by the group shows that there are several other subsidies for nuclear power in the UK and that proposals by the government would introduce more.
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion and leader of the Green party of England and Wales, said, "The Government's planned Electricity Market Reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear. I trust the European Commission will take action and prevent the UK's nuclear plans from seriously undermining the shift towards new green energy."
"There is no justification of any kind for subsidising nuclear power" says Dr. Gerry Wolff of Energy Fair. "It is a mature technology that should be commercially viable without support. Renewables have clear advantages in cost, speed of construction, security of energy supplies, and effectiveness in cutting emissions of CO2. There are more than enough to meet our needs now and for the foreseeable future, they provide diversity in energy supplies, and they have none of the headaches of nuclear power."
Agreed, fringe types of energy should not be subsidized by the government, so here's hoping that movement spreads to the U.S.A., where about $35 billion in subsidies are being squandered on non-viable technology. Their made-up "renewables have clear advantages in cost, speed of construction, security of energy supplies, and effectiveness in cutting emissions of CO2" claim is just that. Nuclear power is only expensive because of rampant regulation and lawsuits by the same groups who made it too expensive and now claim it isn't viable because it is too expensive.