Nuclear reactions

A speedy 25 minute run before the rain started.

Germany has opted to phase out nuclear power generation, so it was probably inevitable that Britain’s Conservative-led government would swiftly propose the exact opposite – “the biggest nuclear renaissance since the 1950s”, to the consternation of many people.

Even the rabidly right-wing, money-fixated Daily Telegraph is highlighting fears that the plans will include a deliberate transfer of financial support away from renewable energy sources to incentivise investment in the nuclear “opportunity”, upsetting all the prosperous green-tinged opportunists who have leapt on the chance to reap profit from investment in expensive photovoltaic panels.

Controversially, in the Guardian, George Monbiot argues again in favour of nuclear power, saying essentially that it’s the least harmful option that has any hope of meeting demand, since modern safety standards are much more stringent than those applied to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor. A second reactor nearby actually survived the tsunami, having been built 10 years later than the first.

In that context, the real problem appears to be the collusion and powerful vested interests which operate dishonestly throughout the energy industry, and the need to control them with unprecedented scrutiny and transparency in the same way that the equally toxic levels of radiation are already controlled.

Given the UK government’s track record of collusion with the world of corporate finance we clearly still have grave cause for concern. However, as Monbiot put it, there is no contradiction between favouring the machines and opposing the machinations. 
At the same time, at least some of Monbiot's assertions are questionable - not least regarding the relative harmfulness of nuclear & coal-based energy generation (ref) - and the debate clearly has a long way to go.