Tuesday
Mar152011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hastings notices energy gap
Mar 15, 2011 Energy Politicians Max Hastings, writing in the Mail, notices that we may have a bit of a problem with our energy supplies here in the UK.
To be sure, if Fukushima releases lethal radiation affecting thousands of people, it will become much harder politically for any government to push through a new nuclear programme. But, today, this still seems unlikely.
What could be a catastrophe for Britain, however, is the crisis that will fall upon us ten years hence unless this Government comes to its senses, and starts to plan for a credible energy future which must include nuclear power.
If it continues to duck the issues and leaves policy in the hands of Chris Huhne and his foolish green friends, start hoarding candles.
H/T Breath of Fresh Air
Reader Comments (127)
sHx
If you make valid points there's more chance of enlightening people.
It might also help if you READ what I actually write - note the use of the word 'realpolitic' at 3:17pm. Why do you think I used that particular word?
There are constraints. This is not an exercise in blue sky thinking. Or at least not on my part.
Once again: you are under-estimating coal costs massively because
- World demand is rising and will continue to do so, forcing up prices
- New plant requires provision for ludicrously expensive CCS
- The energy markets know this, and it’s already pretty much impossible to access affordable finance to build new coal-fired plant in the UK
Life isn’t simple.
From time to time you are still asked to vote. See if you will remember next time.
CCS. Unproven technology, energy costs to implicate also unknown.
Even if you can capture it, what do you do with it? Put it nto fizzy drinks?
You would have to encapsulate and bury. Just like nuclear waste, how do you stop it escaping in the event of an earthquake?
CCS is a load of twaddle, latched onto by Miliband and the green faithful, without reference to any scientific backing.
Build nuclear, and only phase out coal as capacity is matched. In the meantime, acceptthat plants may grow quicker.
CO2 is NOT plant fertiliser. It is essesntial for plant life, as O2 is for us.
SHX, coal and nuclear have about the same costs according to a Royal Academy of Engineering report. Some reasons for prefering nuclear are:
(a) In the long term, coal is going to run out, and nuclear is the only answer.
(b) Nuclear is a hugely more concentrated energy source than coal.
(c) Coal makes a mess of the environment when you dig it out and in its waste products, much more so than nuclear because of (b). (Many CO2 skeptics do care about the environment!)
In The Guardain/Observer a couple of days ago..
"Chris Huhne has won the support of six other European governments to push for a toughening of the EU’s climate targets, to be discussed in Brussels on Monday . The energy and climate secretary is spearheading a growing movement in favour of a target of 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, instead of the current 20%.
He will join his counterparts from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Greece to argue for the higher target at a four-hour meeting of all 27 member states.
In a letter to the Guardian, Huhne and his fellow ministers say: “At a time when the price of oil is soaring, putting in place an ambitious plan for Europe’s low-carbon future has wider benefits than tackling climate change. It will increase the continent’s resilience against oil price spikes and reduce its dependence on imported energy. And it will help Europe compete with emerging economies in the fast-growing markets for green goods and services.” – Observer, March 13 2011
Richard Tol has put the extra costs together for a 30% target..
“What Europe must not do is continue to barrel down a path that makes no economic sense. Yet it seems committed to its reckless course. The European Commission wants to toughen the carbon-reduction target to 30 per cent below 1990 levels – which Tol calculates would cost roughly £370 billion a year, twice as much as the existing plans. The effect, over the next 90 years, would be to reduce temperatures by an additional one-hundredth of a degree.” – Telegraph, July 02 2010.
Huhne is off with the greenies in utopia land.. (greenpeace is keeping an eye on policy)
http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/who-voted-for-greenpeace-mr-huhne/
"So nuclear becomes a smart choice for security of supply"
I agree, but how do you convince the Huhnes of this world? I have this awful feeling that they won't get it until the lights go out one overcast, windless January day, when it's -20 at night...
I think the fondness for nuclear over coal in the main is for a variety of reasons:
- it exposes the hypocrisy in the green position, who aren't anti-CO2 at all, they're actually anti-people;
- supply security; uranium is 500 times commoner than gold
- logistical convenience; one tonne of uranium produces as much electricity as 20,000 tonnes of coal
- safety; coal mining kills hundreds every year, mostly poor people in poor countries, which greens don't give a stuff about but thinking people shoul
- the burning of coal definitely produces a lot of atmospheric scurf that is pretty unpleasant: ash, soot, quite a lot of uranium and quite a lot of sulphur.
None of these reservations really applies to uranium to the same extent as to coal. The fact that coal produces a lot of beneficial plant food is not really enough of an argument in its favour to obviate these issues.
There is also the point that it's a lot easier to turn coal into liquid fuels for cars than it is to convert all cars to run on coal fired electricity. The former requires the construction of coal to liquids plants, which then produce fuels you can distribute in the normal way. The latter requires the constructions of scads more power stations to produce the extra electricity, plus the complete reconstruction and replacement of the car parc and of the road fuel distribution network. So it makes sense to reserve coal for conversion to liquid fuels and to use nuclear to generate the electricity required by current applications.
Brahma Chellaney over at Cif:
"Yet natural disasters such as storms, hurricanes, and tsunamis are becoming more common, owing to climate change"
The commenters are not letting him get away with it though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/15/nuclear-earthquake-tsunami-energy-industry
Well, the piece in the Telegraph has already been linked to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8382476/Wind-farms-blamed-for-stranding-of-whales.html
But the interesting thing is that
1) the BBC report on the very same piece of research from St Andrews does not even mention wind farms and bears the title: "Beaked whales 'scared' by navy sonar"
So, for the BBC the bogey man is the Navy. Whatever you do, don't mention ze wind farms...
2) The St Andrews news page does not even mention the report!
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/
It is very unusual for them to do so because they always carry the press release which is then the basis for the various reports in the press.
Some of the folks in the St Andrews Geography Department have been very openly supportive of wind farms (they did a very biased survey a few years back).
So, no wonder nuclear gets a bad press and nothing bad about wind is allowed to seep through in certain quarters...
Sorry, forgot to include the BBC link. Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9424000/9424166.stm
I think the MSM have taken the scare path re the reactors in Japan.
For a balanced technical look at how they have withstood several times their design conditions just read
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/
Here are a number of links to the whitewash that was COMARE, the British government investigation into radiation.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enGB399GB399&q=%2bcomare+LLRC
Here is the reality of the relationship between so called activism and big business. I prefer facts to ideology. It must be the libertarian anarchist in me.
**
Environmental Defense is the only environmental group named among "the most successful nonprofits in recent U.S. history" in the new book Forces for Good.
We also ranked first among environmental groups — and second overall — in the 2007 Financial Times global study of 850 business-nonprofit partnerships
"...the power broker rewarding good behavior"
Time Magazine
"...one of the hottest environmental groups around"
The Wall Street Journal
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=381
EDF has an annual revenue of over 100 million dollars
http://edf.org/documents/8857_AR08_Financial_Comment.pdf
Profits of doom
The European Commission has paid environmental campaigners directly to carry out its political agenda. In 1999, at a cost of about EUR500,000, it set up a new group, the European Environmental Bureau, while also paying both the Friends of the Earth and the WWF EUR250,000 each to set up offices in Brussels. On another occasion, the Climate Action Network was given EUR140,000 for "capacity building". In fact, the Commission funnels about EUR3 million (£2.48 million) a year to environmental groups that it favours.
But that's a drop of oil in the Gulf of Mexico compared with the amounts that private foundations in the US are estimated to provide each year to environmental causes. The sums involved run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. One green organisation - the Tides Foundation - had net assets of $142,007,356 in 2006. Local green groups may rely on "flapjack and organic-soap fundraising mornings" - but real campaigns are funded by a very different and largely invisible mix.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=412726&c=2
Shale gas here we come: http://nohotair.co.uk/
E Smith
The obscene wealth of the NGOs and non-profits is well known here.
The point I made earlier was that they are coming in after the fact - first the climate change scare, THEN the opulently-funded activists and of course, big business. From the insurance and banking sectors to the solar and wind hardware manufacturers.
This is fact, not ideology (or perhaps you were referring to someone else?).
I should also stress that much funding comes from government grants (at least in the UK and Europe; not sure about the US where I believe most of the money is from private foundations).
Since governments do not have money, only tax revenues, we the people get to fund them the advocates. Which is not right, is it?
BBD
"The obscene wealth of the NGOs and non-profits is well known here. "
You read my previous messages then. There is virtually no general popular climate activism because most people think it's nonsense. Even the music world has largely ignored it. It's almost all funded by governments and big business.
The initial global warming scaremongering came from loony eco fascist James Hansen sponsored by George Soros and the big time international politics came initially from Margaret Hilda Thatcher who put loony Christian John Houghton in charge of the IPCC and set up the Hadley Centre for Scientific fraud.
Governments today are the tools of big business. So called activists are supporting big business funded by tax payers as you say.
Athelstan and others,
I think it's a mistake to see Huhne as stupid, scores below average in IQ tests and so on. You have to put him in the context in which he lives;
Party politics and the Westminster Bubble. All three main parties are pretty much agreed on tackling climate change. There are various reasons for this, many of them nothing to do with saving the planet.
The collective consciousness of the electorate, which as a whole seems to behave like a big stupid brute. Cameron didn't clear off and hug the glacier because he had a Damascine conversion, he did that because the public had an appetite for doing something about climate change, when the costs were distant and it seemed a warm and cuddly thing to do for nothing. Things are changing, but we haven't arrived at the stage where one peep about tackling climate change means no votes and skoolz 'n' 'ospitals be damned. Basically three choices to vote for and all variations on the same theme.
His timescales and the feedback mechanism. Politicians are not made to carry the can for screwing up, not like an individual doing stupid things. He's rich anyway and won't suffer. His constituency is probably cheering him on. Feedback via GEs is a very crude mechanism. Whoever is in power when the lights start going out will find the brute of the electorate turns on them, but that's some way off and will be the luck of the draw.
Huhne may come across as being particularly out to lunch, but in any credible scenario of which crowd gained office at the last election, we'd have had a character in his position who didn't behave substantially differently. It certainly isn't a case of Huhne being placed in his position and going off on a wild departure, you have to look at the past ten years or so.
I thought the new age of sheep fat candles as a prime source of indoor illumination is already or about to commence , for I was under the impression that the half of the power stations in UK will be taken offline as early as next year, because of some RU regulation it's politicians have signed and committed the country to adhere to. Am I mistaken or what?
"There is now a ridiculous assumption that all nuclear plants are unsafe."
As exemplified by the German reaction. Never mind that it took magnitude 9 earthquake and a tidal wave to knock out the one in Japan - how likely is that to happen in Germany?
Still if that removes nuclear from the list, and we can't have fossil fuel, that just leaves the renewables. Soon be time to buy that generator.
to BBD
- Activism and pompous, ill-informed self-righteousness have formed an unholy alliance.
I think you'll find that with leaders of any ilk. This is what they will do to any subject, in any country, at any time in history.
The problem with democracy is that the people who should not be in charge of anything, are the ones who push and weasel their way into positions of power which far exceed their abilities. I also believe this will happen in any large organisation. The problem is the person, the power hungry self centered git who tramples on everybody to gain his moment at the top.
Björn,
I'm not sure about the timing being exactly as you say, but the Large Combustion Plant directive is a piece of EU legislation which has had, and will have an effect on our coal fired power stations. Many of the nuclear power stations are coming to the end of their useful life and I believe in some cases are being run past their intended retirement date.
Greg Cavanagh
Only a fool would disagree.
The CEO of National Grid stated last week that power rationing was something the UK will have to accept in the next few years (with or without nuclear). Reaction from the media - zilch!
The CEO of National Grid stated last week that power rationing was something the UK will have to accept in the next few years (with or without nuclear). Reaction from the media - zilch!
cosmic
You may be right.
Huhne has uttered words such as:-
'The idea is truly an abandoned orphan.'
'Only the most profligate of governments would lavish billions on this programme in such a deep recession where hard choices are needed on public priorities.'
'The Government should remember that the British state belongs to the British people and not the other way around.'
But unfortunately that was on ID cards, not energy policy.
Maybe he was strapped into that hot seat with little choice. Thinking of England.
But on the other hand
http://timworstall.com/2010/09/21/chris-huhne-yes-hes-a-twat/
Apologies for not reading the thread in full but BBC Radio 4 has just had a good natured debate between George Monbiot and Caroline Lucas, Green MP
George was supporting nuclear, Lucas was not. Neither of them, questioned Global Warming, nor did host "Martha"
Pharos,
"Twat" is a term of abuse.
Few politicians are consistent in their views or even make much of an attempt to be true to them when in office, so expect Huhne's views on green taxation to be muddled and melded with his other political ends.
Almost all politicians in office seem to have an attachment to taxes, once a tax is established, it's very hard to get rid of it. In this case we have a new basis for taxation and a new excuse for all sorts of makework jobs, which will take some sweeping away.
Weren't the Tories going to have green taxes but no net increase in taxation?
As for the general question of green taxation and carbon trading etc, if you ask how much this is doing to save the planet, the answer has to be very little, so other agendas are being served.
No, I don't approve of Huhne, it's just that I don't think he's that different to any one else who would have been given the office. Maybe he's more unguarded, which is no bad thing as it's likely to help in unravelling the mess.
@Justice4Rinka
"I think the fondness for nuclear over coal in the main is for a variety of reasons:"
OK, let's have a look.
"- it exposes the hypocrisy in the green position, who aren't anti-CO2 at all, they're actually anti-people;"
The green position has a misanthropic streak, I agree, but it is a stretch to say they're "actually anti-people". It is also hard to see the relevance of this statement to nuclear vs coal debate.
"- supply security; uranium is 500 times commoner than gold"
Thank gods we don't burn gold in our coal-powered stations. What could we do with gold in such short supply and at $1000+ an ounce?
"- logistical convenience; one tonne of uranium produces as much electricity as 20,000 tonnes of coal"
Ha! That reminds me an old trick question for primary school kids: What's heavier? A pound of iron or a pound of wool?
What kind of uranium equals the energy value of 20 thousand times that of coal, anyway? Uranium ore? Enriched uranium? Uranium yellowcake? Or pure uranium, if there is such a thing? As a layman, I don't understand these things as well as scientists do.
"- safety; coal mining kills hundreds every year, mostly poor people in poor countries, which greens don't give a stuff about but thinking people should"
As a former Greenie, I can tell you that nobody cares more about "poor people in poor countries" than the green movement. You can blame the greens of stupidity, but you can't blame them of lacking heart.
As for safety, well, uranium mining will kill people, too. And if we are to stop all the economic activity that kill people, we might as well begin with the construction business.
"- the burning of coal definitely produces a lot of atmospheric scurf that is pretty unpleasant: ash, soot, quite a lot of uranium and quite a lot of sulphur."
I can't believe I am reading this in a BH thread.
@BBD
"It might also help if you READ what I actually write - note the use of the word 'realpolitic' at 3:17pm. Why do you think I used that particular word?"
I think you used that word to mean the political heat from the green movement is too much to bear at the moment for a return to coal. You didn't mean to say the green movement has more tank divisions than climate skeptics, did you?
Well, if you understood realpolitik, BBD, you'd realise that this is the best time to ask for a return to cheap coal energy, with green movement currently fighting each other over the safety of nuclear option. This is the best time to drive a wedge between them.
With renewables proving to be dud technology and with nuclear meltdown in Japan, don't be surprised if some greens do break ranks and fall back on coal. And the best and the cheapest way to facilitate a split among the greens is to embrace the carbon tax on the provision that only coal plants will be built, not nuclear.
The nuclear meltdown is a real blow to the CAGW movement. After this, climate science will have even more eyes peering into its apocalyptic assertions and to see whether CO2 is really the bogeygas that its claimed to be.
Some climate skeptics respond as though its the skeptic argument that has taken damage from the meltdown. I suspect that's because some climate skeptics are wedded to the idea of going nuclear, regardless of how expensive, dirty and unsafe it is compared to coal.
The commisar for the UK power grid (can't recall his exact title) has recently put it very clearly to UK people and businesses.
GET USED TO IT.
Get used to using electricity when it is made available to you.
When the wind is blowing nicely, not too hard and not too soft.
When the weather is not too hot and not too cold.
Otherwise just sit at your desk, your factory stool or your kitchen chair and wait for the lights to come on.
After all, remember that you are British to the core.
Just wait in the queue and wait patiently for your turn to press the light switch on.
Not too many of you at one time, remember.
Take your turn, you in the back, no pushing.
More seriously, it's time to get back to basics:
1) reliability of supply is number one.
2) cost per unit of electrcity for consumers is number two.
3) security for loans made to electricity generators is number three (number one to one million from the banks' perspective).
4) return on investment is number four (number one from the electrcity generating companies perspective and for the superannuation funds as well - have you money at risk in superannuation funds? - I thought so - renewable funds? mmmmmmmmmmm).
I can't count to more than four, so I'll just list some of the other interested parties:
- politicans wanting to get re-elected - trying to guess voters wishes, pacify interest groups of all hues, while actually trying to achieve the best outcome - ho hum).
- Green groups and all other kindlyf soulswho just want to leave the world a better place
- unions
- relatives of people killed or endangered by their ocupation or where they happen to live.
- MSM - wanting audience to sell advertising
I'm sure there's lots more too.
The bottom line is a reasonably safe, low cost, high return on investment source of electricity, that can provide a reliable service.
That will win out in the end when all the who-haa dies down or the lights go out.
Ausie coal anybody?
We're ready to supply when you are ready to buy.
When the dancing is all over and the fun has gone out of make believe.
Oh and I forgot about fears about global warming.
Silly me.
But that was all so twentieth century, end of millennium nonesense.
Let's leave that behind where it belongs in the years before scientific reasoning finally came into its own.
Aussie Dan
Mate, that was wonderful. Simple and wonderful. I wish I could swap the ownership of the latest comments with you.:)
Indeed, there is something very odd with the way the British is handling this climate change debate. Both the skeptics and the warmists are handling it more ideologically than pragmatically, it seems to me. I think the reason for that is that in the UK while one side of the debate takes its cue from Europe (compulsory CO2 targets, Cap and Trade, renewables, no nuclear), the other side wants to go the American way (voluntary carbon trading scheme, ethanol, no taxes, lots of nukes).
I believe Australian climate change politics is much more sophisticated than those in the UK and the US. The Greens have given up on the Emission Trading Scheme here and are pressing for carbon tax in order to reduce consumption and fund social programs. The Labor government knows that it dodged a self-inflicted bullet with the ETS, and it's licking its lips for a more profitable way of combating climate change. The Liberal/National opposition have pledged to rescind the tax if they win the government, but few people believe that.
In Australia, we have federal elections once every 3 years. The short cycle would normally count against a political party seeking to implement major reforms while in government. Yet, here we are a Labor party wishing to implement a major new tax, even though it doesn't have a mandate for a new tax and it only survives with the help of a couple of Greens and a couple of Conservative-leaning independent MPs.
The biggest credit here goes to the leader of the Greens party Bob Brown, IMHO, for not being an ideological zealot on this issue. He hasn't given up on his party's agenda, BTW, but he is very pragmatic and very constructive, as he has always been in his entire political career. That is why he is admired and respected by all sides of the politics here, regardless of the political differences. People abroad may be surprised to hear that when Bob Brown stands up in the Senate to speak or to ask a question, the whole Senate falls silent.
The UK and the US climate change politics and politicians have a lot to learn from Australian experience, IMHO.
Mar 15, 2011 at 9:35 PM | cosmic
"I'm not sure about the timing being exactly as you say, but the Large Combustion Plant directive is a piece of EU legislation which has had, and will have an effect on our coal fired power stations. Many of the nuclear power stations are coming to the end of their useful life and I believe in some cases are being run past their intended retirement date."
-----------------
Today, there is about 12GW of LPCD "opted out" generation across 9 power stations, 6 coal-fired plus 3 oil-fired.
Didcot A 1940
Ferrybridge 980
Kingsnorth 1940
Ironbridge 970
Tilbury 1037
Littlebrook 1245
Fawley 990
Grain 1300
Cockenzie 1152
Total: 11,554MW
These proper power stations will close on 31 December 2015 unless they are forced to close earlier because they have used up their 20,000 hours allowance first, or they become too expensive to maintain (average age now is 40 years).
As for nuclear, today there is about 11GW of capacity:
Oldbury 434 close 2011
Wylfa 980 close 2012
Hinkley Point B 1220 close 2016
Hunterston B 1190 close 2016
Dungeness B 1110 close 2018
Hartlepool 1210 close 2019
Heysham 1 1150 close 2019
Heysham 2 1250 close 2023
Torness 1250 close 2023
Sizewell B 1188 close 2035
Total 10,548MW
EDF are planning to start construction at Hinkley C in 2011, and have 1.6GW on line by 2017 and another 1.6GW on line mid 2019. Those dates depend on everything going tickety-boo, ie, no protests, no shortage of labour, no running out of money etc. etc. What could possibly go wrong?
Thats about it, because EDF's 2 x 1.6GW proposal at Sizewell is just starting site investigation with construction starting in 2017, again, maybe!
So, today about 11GW, and then on 1 January 2019 about 3.7GW firm (Heysham 2 +Torness + Sizewell B) plus 3.2 GW maybe (Hinckley C).
Worst case is, we are down about 7GW nuclear plus 12GW coal/oil, ie, a total loss of 19GW by New Year's Day, 2019.
Trebles all round!
Aussie Dan, sHx
The problem of the lights going out in the UK is still in its infancy. Business generally follows trends usually instigated by the larger companies followed up by insistence that contractors/suppliers, or the smaller companies, follow suite or lose trade.
Most companies will now have an emergency plan that comes into effect in the case of fire, flood, burglary etc which provides a route to maintain operations in the shortest period of time if such an event should befall the company. We will start seeing loss of power come into this category in the immediate future which means that backup generation of power will need to be addressed throughout business.
If the intention is to meet emissions targets you will find that national scale localised generation will defeat this objective as business will not be looking for renewable sources but instead reliable dependent diesel, petrol and lpg generators.
Barry Woods,
Interesting link. Thanks for posting that.
Huhne's campaigning for an even higher reduction in CO2 emissions may yet serve a valuable purpose. It highlights the way legislation comes about in an unusually transparent fashion. Huhne is publicly lobbying the EU to enact a higher target. This kind of lobbying by British politicians and mandarins doesn't usually attract British press attention. As a consequence of that Westminster can choose whether they want to blame bad legislation on Brussels even though they had a hand in making it or take credit for it themselves if it is okay. In this instance it is unavoidable to see the British Government's intentions to make bad legislation even worse.
Huhne's hubris shines a much needed light on the poor way in which we are represented.
A good bit of anti-hype on The Register yesterday.
Also hard not to agree with the commenter who said: "I would so love, once this is over, for someone in a major news organization to go back and retell the story with the truth, and contrast that time line with the news reports coming from the major media organizations. There are so many 'journalists' who don't deserve the title now."
Thanks, AusieDan and brownedoff, for your posts.
While the big economic picture will certainly engage minds, I'd like to point out a few facts of life from the bottom of the grassroots, i.e. those who have to live with the consequences.
Firstly, energy rationing - let'snot beat about the bush, this is what it is about - means fridges and freezers will become useless; food will spoil and especially families will have to go back to daily grocery shopping.
Good luck with that - working mums will be delighted, I'm sure!
Secondly - house cleaning (hoover) and running the washing machine will have to take place at very odd hours indeed. Again, families with kids will love that!
It basically points to the inevitable: mums will have to give up their jobs, therefore loss of income, therefore less money for consumables - therefore revenue for the exchequer will contract heavily.
With a contracting economy more jobs will be lost, the revenue will shrink while expenditure will rise ... what was that about debt repayments???
Sure the greenies will like this - but have they ever thought about how to clothe and shoe growing kids? Are we going to go back to pre-WWII times, where people used hand-me-downs? How are the greens, how are Cameron et al going to explain this to us, when we all know that it is due to their policies alone?
One thing is for sure: the people living here, especially those who actually pay their taxes, are not going to accept this stoically like the Japanese.
After all - it truly and incontrovertibly was an act of Nature which inflicted these miseries on them.
Here - it would be simply an act of extreme stupidity exhibited by our politicians, driven by the MSM. That is something I doubt the population will find acceptable.
Nuclear power is a dirty, dirty business in all respects. You cannot believe a nuclear technician any nore than you can believe an AGW technician. The true record of the nuclear industry is not a matter of public record. At least the global warming rascals haven't had to rename the IPCC so far. Maybe they could call it Windscale.
It is just as daft for the right to defend nuclear as it is for the (phony) left to defend AGW. In my opinion, you cannot trust any employee to tell the truth these days. Criticise your employer in public and see what happens to you.
Viv Evans,
The whole of Westminster has collectively gone off on a happy green trip. There are various reasons for this, but it's a happy world of leading the way to a new future, millions of green jobs, scams and easier control. Coming down off the trip would involve immediate pain, and it's all so cozy where they are. If they all stick together they can put off the fateful day. There's no significant difference between the stances of any of the main parties on climate change.
I'm sure what you say about energy rationing is correct, but the British public seem to put up with just about anything, so given a choice between staying in Green Happy World and facing a problem some way off (which they believe they can finesse, or which another lot will cop for) and doing things which are not comfortable, it isn't a hard decision for politicians to make.
Don't forget that the public has gone along with this, not foreseeing the consequences and accepting that it was all to save the planet.
SHx
The European situation (including UK) is very different from Australia. I used the term ‘realpolitik’ to emphasise that there are constraints on what is now possible here. Specifically, costing and building new coal-fired plant has become extremely problematic because of EU emissions legislation. In the UK, no new coal fired plants can be built unless they have CCS provision:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f775570-99c4-11df-a0a5-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Gl2xskx5
This means your argument for coal is beside the point. Realpolitik prevents it happening. Brownedoff gets this (March 15 9:35pm).
I understand realpolitik well enough, especially as it applies to the complexities of energy policy in the UK.
Your cost argument is beside the point, as I have already tried to explain (March 15 3:59pm; 4:10pm and 4:44pm). Your political understanding of the European and UK situation is incomplete. That’s why you are talking nonsense about ‘driving a wedge’ between the ‘greens’ etc. None of that is relevant. It is no longer even faintly plausible that the UK could embark on large-scale construction of non-CCS coal-fired plant. Coal with CCS is a fantasy, so coal is effectively dead going forward.
You say
This seems to be the core of the problem. You imagine that there is a choice in how energy policy is developed. There isn’t. The UK is suffocating inside a colossal failure of EU climate (energy) policy which our political masters have so far failed to acknowledge is happening.
As I have tried to explain, nuclear is the necessary alternative baseload generation technology to coal. Not ‘better’ per se, just the only thing actually in play. Talking about coal is pointless. That option is currently not available in the UK. The CCS albatross has dragged it down.
E Smith
Your anti-nuclear crap is getting tiresome. Why not talk rubbish about something else?
BBD
Why can't you be a good little boy and behave yourself on BH's blog ? If you have anything of substance to contribute then fair enough, otherwise sit down and STFU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield
Some claim that the Irish Sea remains one of the most heavily contaminated seas in the world because of these discharges.[41]
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) reports an estimated 200 kilograms (441 lbs) of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea.[42] Cattle and fish in the area are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from these sediments and from other sources such as the radioactive rain that fell on the area after the Chernobyl disaster. Most of the area's long-lived radioactive technetium comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the Sellafield facility.[43]
E Smith
How many reactors in service worldwide?
How many contamination incidents over the last 40 years worldwide?
Why are you hyper-focussed on Sellafield? (Hint, because you haven't got an anti-nuclear case).
And, Smith, cut the patronising stuff.
BBD
You have no idea what the nuclear industry is up to. The nuclear industry is highly secretive, partularly in Japan, but of course you had no idea about that. Dounray also has a long record of cover ups and lies.
Read the reports about the whitewashing of the COMARE committee. New Labour was up to its neck in connections to the nuclear industry.
E Smith
Please answer the questions:
- How many reactors are in service worldwide?
- How many contamination incidents over the last 40 years worldwide?
You are retreating into repeats of your rhetoric and conspiracy theories.
Hmm ... Andrew Bolt, in an article in Melbourne's Herald Sun, has an interesting take on this: here. He sees Japan's nuclear disaster as
I suspect that may turn out to be true - except, that is, re the UK.
"How many contamination incidents over the last 40 years worldwide?"
What industry rent boys are you basing your figures on ?
The problem with AGW is that the science community is accepting an enormous pack of lies about AGW because they are too scared to open their mouths. That's why you can never, never believe anyone who calls himself a scientist in these times.
Nuclear is even hotter than AGW.
E Smith
It is clear that you cannot make a case against nuclear. So be a good boy and sit down and STFU.