The coalition agreement noted that the Liberal Democrats have 'long opposed any new nuclear construction', and will maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the Government to pass laws that make new nuclear construction possible. They will abstain in parliamentary votes. The Tories, on the other hand, are 'committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations... provided that they receive no public subsidy'.

A week after the election Chris Huhne’s opposition to nuclear power was suddenly all about costs rather than environmental or security risks. He told The Today Programme on 13th May 2010that he may oversee a new wave of nuclear reactor construction, if power companies go ahead without government subsidy. He said if they come up with a feasible plan which genuinely involves no subsidy then this will be put through the national planning process. The key point, Huhne stressed, on which there is agreement within the coalition Government, is the principle there will be no public subsidy.

In December 2011 the first of Ed Davey’s predictions came true when Junior Minister Charles Hendry announced that the Government would take title to and liability for intermediate level waste and spent fuel from new nuclear reactors for a fixed price. But it insisted this scheme designed to reduce the amount of money nuclear operators have to set aside and leaving the taxpayer with maximum risk was not a subsidy.

The second of Ed Davey’s predictions came true six months earlier when the Finance Bill was passed before the 2011 summer recess. The Bill introduced a carbon floor price to artificially raise the cost of carbon emissions allowances. The way it is designed means EDF Energy will receive a windfall for its existing nuclear reactors. The former Treasury Secretary, Justine Greening MP, argued that the benefits to the existing nuclear sector are likely to be: 'an average of £50 million per annum to 2030 due to higher wholesale electricity prices'. WWF and Greenpeace think it will be £264 million per year, but even £50 million per year means a £1 billion windfall to nuclear operators. Alan Whitehead MP calculated that EDF will receive £44 billion of free money after extending the life of four of its nuclear stations, and there are probably more life extensions to come.

Now we learn that not only is Ed Davey planning to guarantee the wholesale cost of each unit of new nuclear electricity, but he is planning to do it for as long as 40 years rather than the 20 years originally envisaged. Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial and University colleges in London, calculates that EDF would receive £50bn in support from the government over four decades for the two reactors proposed for Hinkley Point in Somerset. MPs are also concerned that the Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament will allow future governments to give nuclear power stations more money if needed, without telling parliament.

According to The Guardian some MPs are angry about the government's changing rhetoric on subsidies. Since the 2010 promise there would be "no public subsidy", ministers have modified it to say no "unfair" subsidies – wording intended to cover support for a range of technology. This month the energy secretary, Ed Davey, admitted to MPs the funding mechanism could differ between technologies and even individual projects.

So, thanks to Ed Davey himself, his third prediction looks likely to come true soon. If the Liberal Democrats had started to implement the alternatives to nuclear power put forward in Ed Davey’s 2006 paper when they first took control of the Energy Department, EDF Energy would not have the Government over a barrel in the way they do now. Ed Davey’s pledges not to subsidies new reactors were clearly worth about as much as Chris Huhne’s protestations of innocence over his speeding ticket. Unfortunately electricity consumers won’t be able to send Davey to prison when subsidies to nuclear power start to take money out of our pockets.