Theresa May's decision to 'pause' approval of the new Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power station has addressed one concern about the controversial scheme, but only one.
The deal, which will see French firm EDF and the Chinese Government-controlled CDG group jointly fund and own the £18m power plant, will go ahead with the caveat that the UK Government retains a veto on any possible future selling-on of the facility.
This is somewhat reassuring, but does not fully defuse alarm over the potential national security issues inherent in granting ownership of a key piece of national infrastructure to foreign firms and - effectively - the Chinese Government.
Other significant problems remain unaddressed. For one, EDF has its own financial problems and is currently constructing two plants in France and Finland, both of which are over-budget and behind schedule. The design planned for HPC has never worked yet, anywhere in the world.
To get the French and Chinese to foot the bill, the Government has had to promise £92.50 per megawatt hour of power produced, almost double the current wholesale energy price. Reliable estimates suggest the cost to bill-payers will be an extra £25 a year for 35 years.
The trade-off here is paying a guaranteed higher rate in return for a reliable low carbon source of future energy. It is hard to judge whether such a subsidy represents good value or not.
Relying on low wholesale prices into the future seems foolhardy, but nuclear technology while good for meeting climate change obligations is environmentally problematic due to the waste generated.
Tom Burke of green thinktank E3G said that with grammar schools and nuclear power, Theresa May is "building a better yesterday".
It would be good to see similar sums invested in renewables, but there is a need for urgent replacement for the 20 per cent of energy provision currently produced by the UK's ageing nuclear power stations.
As a result, nuclear power needs to remain part of the UK energy mix at present. But despite the Government's reassurances, this remains the wrong deal, at the wrong price.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here