I see the Independent has lined up four Greens - Chris Smith, Stephen Tindale, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall, as converts to the cause of boiling water through splitting uranium atoms.
Would you rather have your electricity from coal, or from nuclear is like the old question, would you rather die by being boiled in a vat of sump oil, or die by lying in the road and have a spiked harrow dragged over you?
The correct response to both questions is "No thanks", or, for non idiot people, "Let us re-frame the question".
It is not a straight choice between coal and nuclear, both of which are as deadly as each other, each in its own special way. There is a third option - a Europe-wide grid of High Voltage Direct Current lines which can distribute renewable energy, from arrays of offshore windfarms the North, to assays of Concentrated Solar Power in the South.
Every day, the sun gives us about 200,000 times as much energy as we humans actually use. Our task is to stop dithering and get busy tapping into that energy. This process, combined with energy conservation (basically, insulation work) will provide a sufficient stimulus to power us out of the recession, provided Government stops fiddling around with bailouts for the investment bankers and grants for the banks motor car industry.
There are 10 strong arguments against using nuclear power to decarbonise our economy. The one that never gets mentioned is that nuclear power stations are not insured, unlike your average motor car. You'd think they would insure them, but the cost of insuring them would make it more expensive than renewables, so they don't.
I am sure that Chris, Mark, Chris and Stephen will be working on a little insurance package for the industry.
Here is my letter to letters@independent.co.uk
While I respect the decision of Green activists who have come to the awesome decision that they must accept nuclear power, I hope they will use their 2p of influence to ensure that the new stations have the cost of insuring the power stations built in to the equation. At the moment, they are insured for less than 1% of the cost of a Chernobyl-type accident, which creates an uneven playing field, since sustainable forms of energy have to carry full insurance against accidents.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree. It does not make sense. Maybe in other natiuns but the UK has far too small a landmass to risk nuclear.
Yes, a Maximum Credible Accident (MCA, the technical term for catastrophic release) would pretty much wipe out UK Plc as a going concern. However, Russia is not exactly short in the acreage department, and Chernobyl still killed and deformed tens or hundreds of thousands (depending on which assessment you read) not just in Russia, but in countries near and far.
I'm inclined to come over to the nuclear debate. We really require a finite nuclear plan (say 30 years) while we develop a renewable infra-structure. It is simply unrealistic to assume we can cater for UK energy demands. We would need to build wind turbines at 1 per minite for 15 years to come even close to current demand. New technologies of using empty oil seams for both carbon and depleted uranium need to come into play NOW! We really need to face up to the severity of the problem. We need to wrestle the issue out of the hands of the old CND lobby and act. On a personal level you could always go vegan and reduce your carbon footprint by 1 and a half tonnes of carbon per annum, but it seems the smell of bacon is far stronger than the smell of a renewed environment !
Hi Anon
"We really require a finite nuclear plan (say 30 years) while we develop a renewable infra-structure".
RL: in fact, nuclear power stations will take a very long time to come on stream. Historically, all nukes over-run on time and cost. Yesterday, " An "excessive exuberance" for expansion in the U.S. nuclear power industry has calmed because of the global credit and economic crisis, the head of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Tuesday.
Separately, a GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy official warned that the lack of credit will slow the pace of U.S. nuclear power development".
The lead time for energy conservation is far shorter than nuclear power stations (NPS) - like a week. If Government stopped commissioning reports and faffing, and started doing what needs to be done wrt conservation and renewables, nukes would be entirely out of the frame.
It is simply unrealistic to assume we can cater for UK energy demands. We would need to build wind turbines at 1 per minite for 15 years to come even close to current demand.
RL: there is far more to renewables than wind power. Again, Government needs to commit seriously to wind, wave, tide, geothermal, solar heating, and PV in the UK, and also to CSP solar power from the Sahara. This diversity is the strength of the renewables.
"We need to wrestle the issue out of the hands of the old CND lobby and act".
RL: I am still a member of CND for sentimental reasons, but they are not particularly vocal opponents of nuclear power, although they do oppose it.
"On a personal level you could always go vegan and reduce your carbon footprint by 1 and a half tonnes of carbon per annum, but it seems the smell of bacon is far stronger than the smell of a renewed environment !"
RL: My granny used to say every little helps. I plead guilty to the occasional bacon sarnie, but less meat is more better for all concerned, including the animals.
I do respect your opinion, and I have myself toyed (cognitively) with the use of NPS to destroy military grade materials, though this too seems to be double edged. NP is a multi-faceted argument, and I do urge you to look at least at the links on the main article.
Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment