The government announced today that new nuclear power stations are to be built. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that Gordon Brown's brother works for EDF Energy, the UK subsidiary of EDF, which operates nuclear power stations in France. EDF's design for its power stations is one of the designs under consideration for the UK's future programme.People will protest against new nuclear power stations. However, nobody has any answers to the UK's future energy gap. There is a year on year increase in demand for electricity. Add to that a rising population creating yet more demand.
Old nuclear and power stations being decommissioned will need replacements, regardless of the disdain for coal and nuclear. Going 100% for renewable energy is impossible and would more than treble everyone's electricity bills.
Telegraph - Earthlog
2 comments:
Did you actually read the zero carbon Britain document I recommended a few weeks ago James? Your quite rightly cynical about the motives for new nuclear plants - of which an unimaginative government is perhaps one of the biggest. The proposals in the Zero Carbon report would generate a national momentum and positive approach to the future not seen since the war.
(And yes, of course population is the elephant in the room - that's why have no children... And no, I'm not anti nuclear - I just think it's a short sited option with few real benefits for jobs, the economy and resilience 100 years from now (when uranium will be in very short supply).
So, come on - what did you think of the Zero Carbon Britain report - apart from 'it doesn't mention population'...
The term "Zero Carbon Britain" is a misnomer. It is more of an aspiration.
How close can we get to zero carbon? That depends on short-sighted men in suits. The corporate class and their political lackeys.
Sweden has an announced a ZC future but I am sure in the years to come they won't even get near, simply because businessmen and politicians put economic growth before all else.
Nuclear is a stop gap. Rather a late one in that the first power station won't be online until 2020. By then we could be having power cuts.
In that respect we could even aspire to 10 nuclear power station , go full-steam ahead with everything else and fill the gap with less nuclear.
However, if we had a 100% renewable supply then instead of £30 or so per MWh we have electricity at £90 MWh. You will then have an energy underclass who can't watch ITV1 all night and will be out in the streets causing mischief.
There needs to be an energy mix with a population decrease.
Efficiency. Here we have Jevons Paradox. The cheaper or easier something is to get at then the more of it will be used. CFLs and LEDs will result in people leaving lights on. People have a set budget and if you give them a 30W LCD TV then it will be on all day whether they are looking at it or not.
Efficiency needs to be enforced but you can't really expect to force anyone to change their lifestyles.
The European Super State is what you will need if you wish to trade Polish wheat, Scandinavian wood, British wind and Spanish sun. I am probably an old dinosaur in that I can't see that happening.
Maybe younger people won't mind but I can't see the gourmands of France, Spain and Italy closing their farms to balance European requirements. Closing farms is easy for English people who eat crap all day and won't notice the difference.
People talk about bringing back the wartime spirit to solve our problems. What people forget is that there were plenty of spivs, black marketeers, thieves and ordinary people getting stuff under the counter. If there was a national emergency then the black market will be rife. Everyone will be at it.
People are just plain selfish so a "national momentum" is a non-starter.
The only way to coerce people is to hit them in the pockets. As I have said in previous posts "to tax is to burden". People should be given a financial burden for living a lifestyle we don't like.
However, that can fail too as for the wealthy it is not a big deal. Someone buying a £100K super car is given a 10% carbon tax. Do they care?
Personally, I live like a monk so extreme living is not a problem for me. The rainy part of last summer I spent in a damp tent with wet clothes and an empty stomach.
However, I am in a very small minority. I expect that people like me will die off and then everyone else will follow me when the energy and food drought kicks in.
I'm a dystopian with a half-empty glass. Maybe I just need an analyst.
Post a Comment