Navigation – Plan du site

The Coalition Government policy on Nuclear Power: a Toxic Issue for the Liberal Demo-crats?

Alexia Martin
p. 215-226

Résumé

Before joining the coalition, the Liberal Democrats were the principal nuclear-power skeptics on the British political scene. In accordance with the Coalition Agreement, they embraced the Conservatives’ policy of nuclear expansion provided it received no public subsidy. Two successive Lib Dems, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, were tasked with UK’s nuclear new build programme as heads of the DECC. However the ‘nuclear without subsidy’ policy has proved difficult to achieve insofar as investors (mainly EDF Energy) require financial guarantees to embark in the multi-billion-pound project. The government eventually had to find trade-offs between market requirements and the coalition’s promise, notably with measures to encourage low carbon power generation. This was denounced as hidden subsidies for the nuclear industry, and became a divisive issue within the Liberal Democrat party. The next general elections will serve as a test to see if the new policy has alienated core voters who were first attracted to the party because of its green shade.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1 In 2009, The Economist predicted that the United Kingdom will suffer a major energy crisis due to its commitment to reduce coal-fired stations and government dithering on the replacement of aging nuclear reactors.1While 19% of the nation’s electricity is generated by nuclear power (26% at its peak in 1997), all but one of the sixteen current reactors will be decommissioned by 2023, with a quarter of Britain’s nuclear power plants closing by the end of the decade. It is therefore urgent to address the country’s electricity supply, as concluded by several cross-party committees and reports. Tim Yeo, Chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, thus keeps warning in the media that Britain could run out of energy if nuclear power expansion was not brought forward, “a matter of great urgency”, he said.2 Yet, there’s hasn’t been much progress since the previous government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

  • 3  One of François Hollande’s election pledges in 2012 was to cut France's reliance on nuclear power (...)

2 Until the general elections, the Liberal Democrat party was seen as the greenest mainstream party and also the champions of opposition to nuclear power and weapons. Recent events in the world appear to prove them right: the Fukushima disaster, in a country which was once the champion of this technology, Germany promising to phase out by 2022, US nuclear power declining. Even in France, François Hollande announced a major cut in nuclear power’s electricity contribution3. The Conservatives were initially sceptical about nuclear power – especially under David Cameron's leadership – but by the elections, they had fallen into line with the previous Labour government's policy of replacing Britain's ageing reactors. Surprisingly, when the LibDems joined the coalition, there was a significant softening of their stance on nuclear power, as they broadly rallied to the Tories’ policy.In doing so, they took the risk ofalienating many supporters and potentially, lose their identity.

3 This paper sets out to examine the Lib Dems' change of policy in favour of nuclear expansion, as well as the government’s subsequent difficulties to implement this policy. This will eventually raise the question of the Libdems’ political and strategic choices within the coalition government.

Lib Dem’s change of heart

4 The Liberal Democrats have been against nuclear power since the party was formed in the late 1980s. Back then, under the leadership of Paddy Ashdown, the party line was that nuclear power was incompatible with green politics, arguing that there was no safe method of disposing of nuclear waste. This anti-nuclear stance has helped the Liberal Democrats develop an image of the most environmentally aware of the main parties. The same discourse applies to following statements and manifestos, notably their 2010 General Election Manifesto:

  • 4  “Liberal Democrat Manifesto”, London, 2010.

Liberal Democrats will reject a new generation of nuclear power stations; based on the evidence nuclear is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy.4

5At first sight, the 2010 manifesto looks clear cut; it rejects a new generation of nuclear plants, mostly because of the cost. But there were signs that change was under way. In the previous General Election manifesto (2005), they had stated:

  • 5  “Liberal Democrats: The Real Alternative”, London, 2005.

Given their long-term problems of cost, pollution and safety, we will not replace existing nuclear power stations as they reach the end of their safe and economic operating lives.5[emphasis added]

6 In the 2010 manifesto ‘pollution’ and ‘safety’ were no longer mentioned; therefore opposition to nuclear was based on one single issue – ‘cost’: nuclear power was simply too expensive. While the Conservatives also emphasize the cost problem in their 2010 Manifesto, they also suggest a solution to deal with it:

  • 6  “The Conservative Manifesto 2010: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, London, 2010.

We will take steps to encourage new low carbon energy production, including (…) new nuclear power stations – provided they receive no public subsidy.6 [emphasis added]

7 Were the authors of the Lib Dems’ manifesto already thinking of potential discussions around a coalition government? By cutting the 2005 reference to “pollution and safety” and focusing on cost, a harmonization of policy positions was now possible: nuclear power could be acceptable to both parties, but only provided it received no subsidy.

8 This is precisely was the Coalition agreement stipulates:

  • 7  “Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations, Agreement reached”, 11 May 2010.

 Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy. We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that nuclear construction becomes possible.7

9 The text of the agreement acknowledges the Liberal-Democrats history of opposition to nuclear power, and makes some minor concessions to it: Liberal- Democrat MPs are formally permitted to abstain from voting in favour and the issue will not be considered a “confidence issue” for the government. However, it was clear from the beginning that none of these concessions would make any practical difference to the progress of the nuclear programme. Moreover, the department responsible for bringing forward this nuclear programme (the Department of Energy and Climate Change or DECC) was to be offered to a Liberal Democrat – one of five Lib Dem Cabinet members.So we have this odd situation in which pro-nuclear policies were to be delivered by an anti-nuclear minister!

  • 8  At the end of 2008, the Labour government of Gordon Brown admitted the inadequacy of relying entir (...)

10 This ‘anti-nuclear’ minister was Chris Huhne, who thus became Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 20108. It is interesting to note that before entering the government, Huhne was one of the fiercest critics of nuclear power and industry. Here is what he was writing on his website while in opposition in 2007:

  • 9  Chris Huhne, “Nuclear Power Not Needed to Meet Climate Targets”, http:// Erreur ! Référence de lie (...)

Ministers must stop the side-show of new nuclear power stations now. Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology, and the Government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into reviving this outdated industry. The nuclear industry’s key skill over the past half-century has not been generating electricity, but extracting lashings of taxpayers’ money.9

11 When Huhne took office, it seemed that he would stick to the coalition agreement of ‘nuclear power without public subsidies’. Indeed, he confirmed that nuclear was to be financed by private investors or was not to be, leaving it “entirely up to the nuclear industry”.10 However, a few months later, his own personal inconsistencies started showing. In a speech to the Royal Society, he made it clear that his personal belief was that nuclear power was “vital” to Britain’s future, saying definite statements such as “we need nuclear to be a part of our energy mix”; but in the same speech, he also declared: “Nuclear policy is a runner to be the most expensive failure of post-war British policy-making, and I am aware that this is a crowded and highly-contested field”.11 This cost him media headlines such as “Huhne’s radical volte-face” or “Huhne’s dramatic personal U-turn”.12

12 When Chris Huhne resigned in 2012 over speeding case charges, another Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey, took over as Minister for Energy and Climate Change, still with the mission of advancing the nuclear programme. Upon taking office,he announced:

There have been understandable concerns given the expensive mistakes made in the past which the taxpayer is still paying for. But the Coalition agreement is crystal clear – new nuclear can go ahead so long as it’s without subsidy.13

13 Yet this is what he was saying in 2006 on launching the Liberal-Democrats’ ‘Say no to nuclear’ campaign:

  • 14  The original press release is no longer accessible on Ed Davey’s website. See quote in : “Nuclear (...)

In addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market. It is an issue that crops up in my postbag time and again. People don’t want nuclear, but they don’t know what the alternatives are. Now they do, and the alternatives are cleaner, safer, greener and better for the environment and the taxpayer.14

14 Although Ed Davey was the architect of the previous anti-nuclear Liberal-Democrat policy, today, he too is sticking to the Coalition formula that, so long as there is no subsidy, there is no contradiction in supporting nuclear. Asked if he is a full convert to nuclear or just a reluctant supporter, he answered:

  • 15  “Ed Davey: Out of the Shadows”, The House Magazine 16/03/2012 (accessed on 20/09/13 at http://www. (...)

It’s more than a reluctant acceptance. Nuclear has always been an issue of contention within our party but I think the balance of opinion has changed in recent times. I’m not trying to suggest that all Liberal Democrats are happy with nuclear power, they’re not. My personal criticism of nuclear power, the point I really worry about and still do, is the cost.15

15 Eventually and against all odds, the coalition government speaks with one voice about its priority environment commitment: fighting against Climate Change through the promotion of Low-carbon energy. Nuclear is just part of this strategy and no longer an issue over risks, pollution and waste. It might be objected that this is no ordinary industry, an oversight that could explain the complex situation of delays and trade-offs the government now has to address.

Pitfalls of the ‘no subsidy’ policy

16 Whereas the current policy requires massive private investment in new reactors and facilities, it has proved difficult to find investors. Indeed, investing in nuclear involves unusually high risks for several reasons:

  • Huge costs involved

    • 16  Currently the DECC already spends £6.93bn a year on managing nuclear waste and other liabilities f (...)

    The cost of each new nuclear power plant in the UK could be as high as € 8bn, with a return on investment coming well into the 2020s. The cost of replacing Britain's ten nuclear power stations could therefore reach £ 80bn, excluding the cost of decommissioning ageing reactors or dealing with nuclear waste.16

  • Operational risks

    • 17  “What Germany must learn from Chernobyl and Fukushima”, DerSpiegel, 27/04/11 (//www.spiegel.de/int(...)
    • 18  In the UK, the current maximum that a nuclear operator is liable is still only £140m, the rest of (...)

    The cost of coping with accidents is a major impediment to any investment in this particular technology. To give an idea of the scale, the estimated cost of the Fukushima disaster is between $ 130bn and $ 250bn. As the German Environment Minister put it, “no insurance company in the world is willing to cover these risks”.17 That is why nuclear operators benefit from a capped third party liability, while other power generators have to bear the full costs of their third party liability.18

  • The need for long-term planning and commitment.

  • The planning and construction of a nuclear plant take around 15 years, for 40 years of operating lifetime and many years of subsequent decommissioning. That is the reason why potential investors should not expect short-term decisions and early profits.

  • The need for consistent government support over decades.

  • Because of these uncertainties, most analysts agree that nuclear power can only be viable if it is offered long-term subsidies, which seems to be at odds with the pro-market ideology underlying governmental action. This explains why the DECC eventually had to find trade-offs between market requirements and the no-subsidy promise.

17 In 2008, when the government announced UK's nuclear new build programme, there was some excitement within the European nuclear industry but it soon ebbed way. SSE (Scottish and Southern Energy plc) pulled out of the PowerGen consortium in 2011, followed in March 2012 by E.ON UK and RWE npower pulling out of the Horizon consortium. By mid-2012, most of the potential investors had withdrawn from the nuclear project, placing future of nuclear power in the UK in doubt. Despite of this, the French company EDF Energy has maintained its interest, the only remaining major player today. It is still planning to build four new reactors based on EPR technology at two sites, the first two being at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

  • 19  It means that the long-term price for their electricity is likely to be higher than the price they (...)

18 Nevertheless, its Chief Executive Vincent de Rivaz has repeatedly warned that EDF would not proceed without some financial incentives from the government: "I think it's very clear that we will not be able to make our final investment decision (…) without a Contract for Difference and without a robust legal framework for this contract". EDF Energy’s objective is to get a strikeprice (= guaranteed long-term price for nuclear-produced electricity) high enough to underpin the € 19bn investment (for two EPR reactors).19 These negotiations about the strike price are so difficult that they actually stalled in April 2013, a year after they had started. Eventually, a deal was struck in October, in which EDF Energy will lead a consortium that includes Chinese investors, to build the Hinkley Point C plant.  

  • 20  On 29 November 2012, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change introduced the Energy Bi (...)
  • 21  The final contract drafting will be published in December alongside the final strike prices, and i (...)

19 To get there, the government had tried hard to meet the investors’ requirements. The Electricity Market Reform (EMR), a large plan for electricity market overhaul, was set out in 201220. Among the new measures, the main bone of contention is the complex Feed-in Tariff with Contract for Difference (FiT CfD), which is meant to stimulate investment in low-carbon power generation. Nuclear being considered as low-carbon by the government (though it is disputed), nuclear operators are allowed to reap higher prices for nuclear energy than fossil fuel power stations21. It means that the nuclear industry is entitled to this state aid, just like renewable technologies such as wind or solar photovoltaics.

  • 22  “Lib Dem MPs set to rebel against nuclear power 'subsidy'”, The Guardian, 01/07/11.
  • 23  “Lib Dems' green boast under threat as party votes for nuclear”, The Guardian, 15/09/13.

20For most commentators, these are hidden subsidies, devised to convince investors to engage in Britain. Hence the campaign against the Contract for Difference conducted by several Lib Dems MPs who accuse ministers of pushing through secret subsidies for the nuclear industry in breach of the Coalition Agreement. Backbencher Martin Horwood has thus argued that the industry is “being given millions of pounds for no change in behavior whatsoever” while voters will pay for nuclear power through their energy bills.22 As for Fiona Hall, MEP and leader of the Lib-Dem group in the European Parliament, "if it looks like a subsidy and smells like a subsidy, it is a subsidy."23

  • 24 With the Carbon Price Floor, the nuclear sector is likely to benefit by an average of £50m per annu (...)

21 More recently, the government was accused of presenting the nuclear industry with another ‘windfall’. The Carbon Price Floor (CPF), which came into effect in April 2013, penalises the technologies that emit carbon and rewards carbon-free one, including nuclear power. This comes down to EDF getting what they demanded: they had been calling for a predictable price for Carbon emissions and hoping for reform of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) that taxed nuclear along with carbon emitting sources.24

22 Finally, the Greens in Europe (supported by a group of Lib Dem MPs) are threatening with legal action on the ground that the plan conflicts with EU state aid rules, which only allow state support for new technologies. Besides, the EU Competition Commission – which frowns on national governments offering anti-competitive deals – is likely to investigate the recent deal with EDF Energy, which guarantees a minimum power price for 35 years. Such an inquiry could take years, delaying the Hinkley Point project and even cause the complex deal to unravel25. According to the political blog “Lib Dem Voice”:

  • 26  LibDem Voice, “Subsidies for nuclear energy go against Coalition agreement AND economic common sen (...)

The UK government is rumoured to be trying to push its own agenda in Brussels by arguing for a broader subsidy framework for mature nuclear technology. This would be an extraordinary volte-face for a liberalising nation which led the fight for reform of the European electricity market – and for a Coalition Government based on an agreement not to build any nuclear power stations with public subsidy.26

What impact for the Liberal Democrat party?

23What has become of the Lib Dem’s anti-nuclear stance? Have the party’s principles been swallowed up by the Tories? It is true that by abandoning the party's long-held opposition to nuclear power, Lib Dem leaders took the risk of alienating core voters who were first attracted to the party because of that green shade.This iscorroborated by some strong objections from within the party where we find the most vocal critics. It really started after the Fukushima disaster, when a group of 21 Lib Dem MPs (a third of the parliamentary party) signed a Commons motion warning that the events “underline[d] the extreme dangers inherent in nuclear power”, and calling for it to be abandoned. Signatories included former leader Charles Kennedy and party president Tim Farron. Other motions were signed – at the request of Martin Horwood – in the wake of the accusations of veiled subsidies for nuclear power (Contract for Difference and Carbon price Floor), seen as a breach of the Coalition Agreement. Eventually, this issue caused much more furore within the party than the shift in favour of the new nuclear build.27

24 Objections also come from environmental organisations like Friends of the Earth or from prominent environmentalists who denounce Lib Dems’ “opportunistic” change of heart about nuclear power. In a letter and well-documented briefings on the issue, several of them formally called upon the Prime Minister to reconsider his “ill-judged fixation with bringing forward a new nuclear programme”.28 Sir Jonathon Porritt, the well-known environmentalist and writer, said:

The Lib Dems have already paid a very heavy price for their participation in the Coalition Government – including the complete reversal of their former opposition to nuclear power. As and when this nuclear power fantasy collapses – as it assuredly will – with it will go all the Government’s objectives on renewables, energy efficiency and the whole low-carbon economy. The Lib Dems will bear the brunt of the blame for this policy fiasco, inflicting further damage on its rapidly diminishing electoral prospects.29

  • 30  230 people were in favour of more nuclear compared with 183 against the idea.
  • 31 The Guardian , 15/09/13.

25 However, some evidence suggests that the party won’t suffer from this policy shift. First, unlike the U-turn on university fees, the nuclear issue has not led to a major MPs split in Parliament. MPs seem to understand that building new plants is a long process, requiring new planning laws and complex pricing mechanisms. Secondly, at the party conference in September 2013, the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the coalition nuclear policy, on the ground that it will help Britain tackle climate change30. In this shift from ideology to pragmatism, the party embraced nuclear power for the first time in their 25-year history. Even if the party backed its leadership, there was some disillusion in the air after the vote.This is illustrated by MP Julian Huppert (a scientist) saying that nuclear "is not perfect, but nothing is".31

26 Yet, this vote is quite surprising, given the previous stance over nuclear risks and waste. Does it confirm that the more idealistic green fringe of the party is a minority today and that members are giving up the environment credo, on behalf of social and economic issues? It might as well mean that they were convinced enough with David Cameron’s pledge of being “the greenest government ever”32and the recent measures to fight climate change. The challenge of global warming has prevailed over antinuclear arguments (at least in Britain), as evidenced by incentives to invest in nuclear within the EMR.

  • 33  Derek Birkett, When Will the Lights Go Out?: Britain's Looming Energy Crisis, Independent Minds, L (...)

27 While it is probably too early to conclude on government action at this stage, we can still say that if the coalition’s policy on nuclear power fails, this will have wasted considerable amounts of money and time and will affect the other aspects of the energy policy, in particular energy efficiency and renewables. The consequences could be two-fold: the worst case scenario of a major energy capacity crisis in the next ten years33 and/or a heavy price to pay for the LibDems at the next general elections.

Conclusion

28 Having being for decades Britain’s principal nuclear power sceptics, the Liberal Democrats have moved into the position of conditional supporters, leaving the Greens as the only outright opponents and voice on nuclear safety and waste. Therefore, the relaunching of the nuclear power programme is unlikely to be questioned by the next government, whoever the winner may be. The issue has crossed party lines.

  • 34  The price EDF is asking for would be double what consumers are currently paying.

29 Although the government is more than ever under pressure to carry out its nuclear plans successfully, it doesn’t want to be accused of subsidising a state-owned French utility at the expense of British consumers34. The controversy might get worse given the current concerns over rising energy prices in Britain, as Labour is pushing for a price freeze and a more transparent and competitive energy market.

30 The two reactors EDF is planning at Hinkley are key to the coalition’s plans to shift the UK away from fossil fuels towards low-carbon power. The transition is seen as crucial if Britain is to meet its binding targets for cutting carbon emissions and keep the lights on. However, a major impediment to this objective is timing. In addition to the construction time (the last two plants at Hinkley have taken 14 years to build and 17 years to commission), complex dealings, consultations and legal proceedings can considerably delay the commissioning of the new nuclear facilities. Nuclear might just be too slow. If Britain and indeed, the international community, have to take large-scale action to avoid catastrophic climate change, don’t they have to take it now to make a significant impact?

Haut de page

Notes

1  “How long till the lights go out?”, The Economist (print edition), 06/08/09.

2 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3679253.ece, 06/02/13 (accessed 25/09/2013).

3  One of François Hollande’s election pledges in 2012 was to cut France's reliance on nuclear power generation from 75% to 50% by 2025.

4  “Liberal Democrat Manifesto”, London, 2010.

5  “Liberal Democrats: The Real Alternative”, London, 2005.

6  “The Conservative Manifesto 2010: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, London, 2010.

7  “Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations, Agreement reached”, 11 May 2010.

8  At the end of 2008, the Labour government of Gordon Brown admitted the inadequacy of relying entirely on free market forces, and created the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

9  Chris Huhne, “Nuclear Power Not Needed to Meet Climate Targets”, http:// Erreur ! Référence de lien hypertexte non valide. date/2007/11, 05/11/07 (accessed on  28/04/12). The website and articles have since been deleted.

10UK Coalition Government to Support New Nuclear Power”, http://www.electric.co.uk/news/category/nuclear-power/page/3 (accessed  25/09/13)

11  Chris Huhne speech to the Royal Society, “Why the future of nuclear power will be different”, DECC, 13/10/11 (accessed 17/09/13 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-rt-hon-chris-huhne-mp-speech-to-the-royal-society-why-the-future-of-nuclear-power-will-be-different).

12  “Nuclear power is vital to our future, says Huhne in energy U-turn”, The Daily Mail, 14/10/2011.  

13 DECC,Februray2012http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/UKDECC/2012/02/17/file_attachments/96140/DECC%2BReview%2BFebruary%2B2012%2Bspecial%2Bedition-reduced.pdf (accessed on 25/09/13).

14  The original press release is no longer accessible on Ed Davey’s website. See quote in : “Nuclear somersault: New Energy Secretary changes his tune and says he won't block reactor plans”, The Daily mail, 6 February 2012.

15  “Ed Davey: Out of the Shadows”, The House Magazine 16/03/2012 (accessed on 20/09/13 at http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/49016/?edition_id=1006).

16  Currently the DECC already spends £6.93bn a year on managing nuclear waste and other liabilities from Britain’s current nuclear power programme.

17  “What Germany must learn from Chernobyl and Fukushima”, DerSpiegel, 27/04/11 (//www.spiegel.de/internationalgermany/0,1518,759228,00.html)

18  In the UK, the current maximum that a nuclear operator is liable is still only £140m, the rest of the costs being borne by the government. By contrast, BP paid for the full $20 billion for the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

19  It means that the long-term price for their electricity is likely to be higher than the price they could get on the open market. The Financial Times reported in February 2013 that the Treasury offered EDF a strike price of £80 per megawatt hour while EDF was asking about £100/MWh.

20  On 29 November 2012, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change introduced the Energy Bill into Parliament, which implements the main aspects of EMR.

21  The final contract drafting will be published in December alongside the final strike prices, and implemented through regulations laid before Parliament in 2014.

22  “Lib Dem MPs set to rebel against nuclear power 'subsidy'”, The Guardian, 01/07/11.

23  “Lib Dems' green boast under threat as party votes for nuclear”, The Guardian, 15/09/13.

24 With the Carbon Price Floor, the nuclear sector is likely to benefit by an average of £50m per annum to 2030 while the renewable energy sector is expected to benefit only by an average of £25m a year to 2030.

25 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/02/eu-britain-energy-idUSL5N0JH2Y020131202 (accessed on 03/12/13).

26  LibDem Voice, “Subsidies for nuclear energy go against Coalition agreement AND economic common sense”, 18/04/12 (accessed on 17/09/13 at http://www.libdemvoice.org/28132-28132.html).

27 Early Day Motion 568, “Nuclear Subsidies and the Coalition Agreement”, http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/568 (accessed on 29/11/13).

28 http://www.jonathonporritt.com/Campaigns/nuclear (accessed on 16/09/2013).

29 http://tomburke.co.uk/2012/05/02/uk-energy-policy-will-fail-if-government-persists-with-nuclear-fantasies (accessed on 17/09/13).

30  230 people were in favour of more nuclear compared with 183 against the idea.

31 The Guardian , 15/09/13.

32  Video of David Cameron’s visit to DECC http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-wants-greenest-government-ever (14/05/10).

33  Derek Birkett, When Will the Lights Go Out?: Britain's Looming Energy Crisis, Independent Minds, London : Stacey International, 2010.

34  The price EDF is asking for would be double what consumers are currently paying.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Alexia Martin, « The Coalition Government policy on Nuclear Power: a Toxic Issue for the Liberal Demo-crats? », Observatoire de la société britannique, 15 | 2014, 215-226.

Référence électronique

Alexia Martin, « The Coalition Government policy on Nuclear Power: a Toxic Issue for the Liberal Demo-crats? », Observatoire de la société britannique [En ligne], 15 | 2014, mis en ligne le 01 novembre 2014, consulté le 18 août 2017. URL : http://osb.revues.org/1652 ; DOI : 10.4000/osb.1652

Haut de page

Auteur

Alexia Martin

Maître de conferences à l'Université de Toulon

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Observatoire de la société britannique

Haut de page
  • Logo Université de Toulon
  • Logo Laboratoire Babel
  • Revues.org