So political predilection guides this debate: the pro-business Right is instinctively pro-nuclear, the Left is anti.

Arduous journey

The old Right has been on an arduous journey, with most finally converted to the truth universally acknowledged, except by flat-earthers: the world is warming at life-on-earth threatening speed. When the climate-deniers' case collapsed, they retreated to an ideological redoubt claiming global warming was a natural phenomenon, not amenable to man-made remedy. But that fortress crumbled too, and even George W. Bush, last of the deniers, conceded.

For some reason the old deniers, barely batting an eyelid, shifted over to nuclear as the only salvation, though those who have been so wrong owe a little humility when it comes to next steps. Posing as hard-headed realists, those on the Right are more prone to pit their ideology against the weight of science. Seat belts? Motorbike helmets? Chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer? Smoking bans? Advertising junk food to children? The science-based realos tend to be on the Left, conviction fundis on the Right.

Climate change leaves no doubt that nuclear power is infinitely better than roasting to death. New stations are likely to be safer and better built, but will still produce a lot of radioactive waste, if less than before. The energy review still has no idea what to do with it. Even so, nuclear is better than baking.

But why are nuclear enthusiasts so sure there is no better alternative? A ring of off-shore wind turbines round these blustery islands would give permanent energy. Tony Blair chose a picturesque boat ride to one to launch his review. It is expensive — but compared with what? So far the cost of nuclear, clean coal and all other untested options is guesswork.

Here is the conundrum: the kind of people now supporting nuclear are the same ones appalled by vast state-sponsored groundnut schemes in the making: look at ID cards, gigantic IT pipedreams, Concorde, the Dome or other balloons swelling up from politicians' airy rhetoric. The history of nuclear power is the most grotesque example of a state programme founded on dreams mushrooming out of control because no one dared to say "Stop!" In the 1950s, people were promised energy so cheap there would be no bills, so no party dared stop pouring good money after bad. Construction was always wildly over cost and late, delivering far less energy than promised. So why are they falling for the same snake oil again?

The wise will keep a hawk's eye on the money. Nuclear is not and never was feasible without heavy subsidy. When the Government swears there will be no price guarantee or subsidy, none of the experts believes it — though the industry naturally pretends. Investors will only build on a worldly wise understanding that the state will step in, one way or another. Always has, always will.

Even the CEO of the U.S. nuclear power company Dominion said that, despite U.S. Government wishes for new nuclear power stations, he would not build, to avoid giving credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's and his own chief financial officer "a heart attack." Standard & Poor's say that not even government help with construction costs changes this reality: "An electric utility with a nuclear exposure has weaker credit than one without and can expect to pay more ... for credit."

The U.K. Treasury has just said it will sell a chunk of its British Energy (BE) interest. Who wants it? Probably EDF, the French Government-subsidised company bidding to build new nuclear plants on BE land. BE already had a £5.1 billion liability written off by the taxpayer as one lot of shareholders saw their investment go bust. Yet somehow fresh "value" has been added. The Treasury hopes to raise £2 billion of its paper £6 billion BE holding.

Why now? Because sky-high gas prices turn BE profitable: the unwary might buy shares, not realising new pipelines and gas from other sources may soon lower prices. But most buyers will be canny investors who know if nuclear building begins, all future governments must back it. Think leaky Thames Water, the railways and all hybrid state-private essential services: even if tax money flows in one end, shareholders can still take it out the other. Despite £70 billion in unpaid nuclear clean-up costs, somehow BE still makes "profits." A rum business.

The eyes of would-be nuclear builders, meanwhile, are on Areva, the French government- subsidised company building in Finland the first new nuclear station anywhere in decades. It has just admitted it is already one year behind, after its first year of construction. Beset with design problems and skill shortages, this is no market tester but a loss-leader financed by Finnish local and central government and the French, borrowing at a subsidised 2.6 per cent from a bank that owns the company building the turbines. Even then, it says it will generate electricity at twice the cost the U.K. Government uses to guesstimate the price of new nuclear power here.

For Britain, nuclear stations are South Sea bubbles in concrete. Once embarked on, they drain political enthusiasm for any other energy finance. Governments hide the true cost from voters, and even from themselves. Watching the small print will not reveal all: hidden taxpayer backing will be watermarked into every clause of new nuclear contracts. If not, if Labour genuinely means no subsidy, there will be no new stations and all this nuclear posturing may be fantasy politics.

— © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006