Christmas has come again for the environ-mentals, as tomorrow’s announcement in the House of Commons on nuclear power approaches.

This has allowed them to bathe in a tub of sanctimony so deep that it could warm the deepest cockles of a Daily Mail leader writer’s heart. Leading the finger waggers was - surprise, surprise - the Guardian.

I gave up reading the Guardian years ago. It has too much of a negative effect on my blood pressure – but I risked my heart health for you this week, dear reader.

On Monday, its environment editor, John Vidal, was predictably scathing. He immediately leapt in with both sandals in his opening paragraph of an article headlined “Consumers May Foot Nuclear Bill”:

“Consumers may face higher electricity bills to cover the future decommissioning costs of a new generation of nuclear power stations to be announced this week, the Guardian has learned.”

Now this is, of course true. However, this fact should not be taken in isolation. As you are well aware, the price of oil almost doubled in 2007… gas prices are being increased significantly by the likes of Gazprom… we are running out of our own oil and we have no more reserves…

So, the costs of having to import energy from near-monopolistic suppliers and the political costs that this would imply will be enormous if we are going to go down that route. The country would end up in serious debt – and our electricity bills would
be massive. The nuclear option would give us energy independence – and that is very valuable indeed (priceless?). It could even be substantially cheaper in the long run too – as fossil fuel prices soar.

A waste of waste

In December, plans were put forward by the nuclear industry to build a £1bn fuel processing plant at Sellafield. This would turn the UK's 60,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste into reactor fuel that will provide 60% of this country's electricity until 2060, it was claimed. The plan is supported by the government's chief scientist Sir David King:

“We can bury our reactor waste or we can treat it and then use it as free fuel for life…it's a no-brainer.”

Friends of the Earth don’t like the plans at all. They said that:

“There is no economic justification for this plan… It would just be another massive subsidy for the nuclear industry. We should invest in renewables.”

Notice the use of the words “subsidy” and “invest”. When you don’t like something it is “subsidised”, when you do it is an “investment.”

Remember the 1980s? The Tory government used to refer to investment in roads and subsidy in railways. They won the argument and our railways were neglected. This is now costing the country millions and millions each year in terms of maintenance and lost business revenues because people waste so much time trying to get from A to B.

The environ-mentals also argue that uranium is a finite resource and any investment or subsidy should go towards renewables. They say all the uranium will have been dug up within 20 years, so the whole nuclear exercise is futile.

Sir David King dismisses this as nonsense.

“We have a massive reserve of high-grade plutonium and uranium in Sellafield's nuclear waste.”

This could be processed to generate fuel… that’s where the refurbishment of Sellafield comes in… it is a vital investment, not a subsidy. A vital investment that is needed to secure our energy future…

So, Gordon Brown and I find ourselves with our beliefs aligned. Let’s hope he gets this one right and gives this country an independent, long-term future. P.S. If you enjoyed this article then sign up for Smart Commodities UK. It’s dedicated to searching out the investment trends that could provide our biggest profit opportunities for the next decade…

• BlinkList
• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Google Bookmarks
• Livejournal
• Newsvine
• Reddit
• StumbleUpon
• Yahoo! My Web