This week Downing Street published three graphs on its web site to support Blair's case for going nuclear "with a vengeance". But what are the assumptions behind these figures?
Are they correct? Are there other possible predictions? If so, we can question Blair's conclusions on the basis that his assumptions can be changed.
Challenge 1: The 'carbon gap'
The first challenge is not up for question.
If we do not reduce our carbon emissions, by whatever means, we can only expect that the devastation predicted to come from climate change will be at the mosre severe end of the spectrum.
At the moment the trends are all going the wrong way, despite the Kyoto agreement. Something radical must be done.
Challenges 2 and 3
These two challenges are up for question.
The main way to do so, according to many commentators, is to observe that they fail to take account of policies and strategies to implement the Rational Use of Energy (RUE), which reduces demand, and makes the most of what we have.
So much energy is currently wasted.
As Peter Harper, from the Centre for Alternative Technology, comments today: "This should go in and 'orthodoxy' should concur. After that it's just a question of filling in the gaps according to our political and other prejudices.'
Peter is one of the authors of CAT's 1977 document Alternative Energy Strategy for the UK.
This was the first report of its kind and addressed concerns such as Climate Change, Peak Oil and resource depletion many years before they entered the mainstream consciousness. So he has been thinking about this stuff for a good deal longer than Tony Blair.
He continues: "The pattern I prefer is below very similar, Dave, to the one you published a couple of years ago [in Defra's own highly subversive Energy and Environmental Management magazine... Something else Blair doesn't read, no doubt.]
"This is just as plausible as the nuclear route, and in fact could incorporate a nuclear component," continues Peter. "But neither will happen if left to a deregulated market."
It's easy to see from the graph that RUE reduces the need for power, and therefore for new plant, and therefore, in principle, new nuclear build.
If we can make products, transport and homes more efficient, we need less power. If we use the power we do generate more efficiently, we need less power. If we need less power, energy bills come down, and we need to spend less on generating power.
Energy efficiency is always cheaper than buying new plant.
Whether our energy in Blair's future comes from nuclear or renewables, or clean coal, the price we pay for it is going to rocket. This is the end of cheap energy, and the beginning of higher bills for business and consumers.
What does the CBI, which applauded Blair on Monday night, think of this?
It should be thinking, that it is becoming far more cost-effective make rational use of the energy it buys and stop wasting £1.5 billion a year (Carbon Trust figure).
Rational Use of Energy (RUE)
Google currently references several pages on Rational Use of Energy (RUE) from DTI's own web site, but these links are broken, and a search on the DTI site turns up very little.
Is it a coincidence that they have suddenly disappeared?
In fact the DTI has been a partner in a pan-Europan programme to develop the Rational Use of Energy under the Fifth Framework Programme.
Nowadays RUE is generally called energy efficiency and resource efficiency. The EU has published its research on the types of policies governments can effect to promote the Rational Use of Energy. The UK Government is perfectly aware of them (somewhere).
The political will to implement the policies is the only thing lacking.
Blair is letting his government off the hook.
Instead, by choosing to put the onus on the nuclear industry and a deregulated market to find the means to address the three challenges, Blair is letting his government off the hook.
A policy solution requires an effort of strong leadership and implementation (such as Taking the choice out of sustainability).
But we know from New Labour's attempts to reform the NHS or implement big IT projects - or even meet its own climate targets - how difficult Blair finds such a government-led solution.
Is it not much easier, he surely thinks, just to pass the buck?
Surely then no one could blame him for failing to "take the tough decisons" or, even, failing - and leaving us with either a legacy of nuclear waste and a security nightmare, a horribly expensive legacy, or the devastation of climate change.
It would be someone else's fault. Dream on, Mr Blair.
Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;