Yesterday evening, on BBC 2’s ‘Newsnight’, there was a revealing moment, demonstrating that Dave’s Conservative Party is not yet ready or fit for office. Alan Duncan [pictured], Member of Parliament for Rutland and Melton, and Shadow Energy Minister, was asked a straight question by Gavin Esler, who, understandably in the light of Tuesday’s alarming electricity blackout, wanted to know what percentage contribution the Conservative Party would propose for nuclear power in the overall generation mix. “Where do you stand on this?” demanded Esler [video clip no longer available on the ‘Newsnight’ site].

Frightened Blue Rabbit

For a significant second, the normally smooth Duncan emulated a rabbit caught in the headlights of a 4x4. He had been well-and-truly ‘lamped’. Either Duncan had no idea (not very encouraging, as he would probably be Energy Minister in a Conservative Government), or he was under strict instructions to say ‘nowt’ .

Then, looking somewhat as if he had received an electric shock, Duncan resorted to the usual slippery politicians’ waffle, mainly attacking the posturing of Gordon Brown, and inferring that Mr. Esler was perhaps being a “bit of a sucker”.

This was a pathetic response, especially following the very day on which, to quote The Times [‘How two tiny glitches plunged 500,000 homes into the dark’, The Times, May 29]:

“Two relatively minor technical glitches within two minutes of each other triggered the most serious disruption to Britain’s energy supply network in more than 20 years ...”

And the outage could have been much worse:

“... power industry insiders said that the shutdown, which led to blackouts in as many as 500,000 homes across the country on Tuesday, could have been even worse. ‘We could very easily have lost the whole system and it could have taken several days for it all to come back on,’ one said.”

The cause of these problems, as we all know, is the seriously under-invested and ageing energy infrastructure, which politicians have ignored for far too long:

“... the incident has focused attention on the need for further investment in Britain’s energy network. ‘It concentrates minds,’ said one source. ‘The older your kit gets the more likely this is to happen.’”

Clearly not, however, Mr. Duncan’s mind.

A Sensible Answer

A sensible answer to Mr. Esler’s question should have been relatively straightforward, and one was actually given this morning by the Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King, speaking at 8.32 am on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme [you may also listen to this interview here, selecting the 08.30 - 09.00 am audio slot, and starting at 1 minute 48 seconds in]:

“Nuclear energy has to be on all the time; so once you’ve switched on a power station, you keep running. So the answer to your question, in my view, is fairly simple. You draw as much power from nuclear as you need at the lowest demand time, which would be mid-summer, which is about 35% of peak. So, I would say 35% of our maximum demand for electricity should come from nuclear. This keeps the total cost of electricity down...”

Just so. By contrast, Duncan’s stunned stare and unhelpful political rant were embarrassing. As I worryingly observed yesterday about the UK’s energy supply [‘Grid Locked’, May 28]:

“We are on the brink. It depends on the bravery of our politicians as to whether we can drag ourselves back from the edge of disaster.”

Time For Political Bravery

Bravery? All we got from Duncan was the panicking wince of a nervous Blue Rabbit. Until this changes, Dave’s Conservative Party will remain unfit for office. On this issue, at least, Gordon Brown has regained the high ground, and he is unquestionably correct to push for more nuclear capacity.

Moreover, as I wrote in The Times in 2006 [‘And, finally, there was heat and light’, The Times, July 13, 2006], we are now in a different nuclear age:

“The new plants are modular and simple in relation to older designs. For example, the modern Westinghouse AP 1000 has 50 per cent fewer valves, 35 per cent fewer pumps, and 70 per cent less cabling than its predecessors. The plant can be contained in a building half the size. This means that plants express a small environmental footprint (compare this to an extensive wind farm) and they are much safer, employing ‘passive’ systems of control, not ‘active’ human management. In the event of an emergency, the safety systems rely on natural forces, including gravity, circulation, and evaporation to shut down.”

What is rather disconcerting is that, on this particular question, the Blue Rabbit should normally be leading the Red Rabbit. It should not be sitting frowning in the headlights of reality.

Come on Dave. It is time to be BRAVE! Tell us, just for once, what you really believe.

After lunch, of course. “Mm! Lapin en gibelotte...!”.