Just a quick one - this started out as a response to Anders Hanson's latest post, but got a bit out of hand! It follows on from discussion of green issues that have been on many Lib Dem blogger's minds lately, as you'll see if you visit his blog.
I have had the nuclear-as-green spiel from a couple of Lib Dem members. The argument starts from the same page as everyone: that we do need to stop burning coal and gas to produce energy, as it's polluting the earth and galloping through limited resources. Solar and wind power are all very well, say nuclear enthusiasts, and should be used much more, but they say we would need nuclear energy as something turn-off-and-onable to ensure continuity of supply as both the sun and the wind are so variable. Of course, storing power is not an easy task - if we could just keep it in a big warehouse or reservoir when we have a surplus, and send it down the wires when we need it, that would be lovely, but we just don't have the technology.
Fair enough then. What other sources of electricity could be turned on and off at will to fill the gaps when demand is greater than a wind/solar supply? To me the obvious answer is hydro and wave power - but I'm told I'm being naive and that even if we could build the infrastructure we need to combine those sources into a reliable energy network that could provide everything we need on demand, it would take so long that more nuclear power is still needed as a medium-term interim measure.
Hrrrmmm. I don't know. I still think that ensuring security of electricity supply by building nuclear power stations around the country is about as well-advised as ensuring security of your home by sticking landmines around your garden. I grew up hearing the stories of Windscale and Chernobyl, and you can tell me it's not the same these days until you're blue in the face, I just can't see how you can guarantee that accidents won't happen.
10 comments:
I'd prefer the likes of solar, wind, hydro and wave but such sources take time to have an effect, whereas nuclear is something we can do fast and soon, before we reach the tipping point and climate change becomes irreversible.
Surely its worth risking a Chernobyl style incident to ensure the survival of the entire planet? After all it's countries like ours that caused climate change, it should therefore be us that takes such risks to fix it.
It's the lesser of two evils/for the greater good.
James Lovelock (he of Gaia Theory fame) puts it better than I can:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html
Here's a really wild idea. Why don't we simply consume less energy across the board by using less consumer shite, being less personally wasteful, & investing in public transport?
We'd also save money & be insulated from any possible bad times by greater self-sufficiency. It isn't a pipe dream any more, people are going in that direction & it could be taken further.
Have you ever encountered Paul Kingsnorth? You might like to look at some of his work: maybe from a library if you're not able/willing to buy it :)
Woah there asquith, stop talking such common sense.
Incidentlly, rampant consumerism is behind climate change as much as it's behind the current economic crisis. The best way, in my opinion, to get people to be more environmentally concious is to show them the economic benefit.
People are more likely to save energy if they know it saves them money rather than just saving the planet.
James - I doubt very much whether nuclear power stations are quick to commission and build.
Money would produce a much quicker return if put into the swathe of energy reduction measures we already know about the expansion of wind power is only now getting going and there is massive scope to expand public transport if the Government had the will.
Rightly so, James Shaddock. It dismays me that people think environmentalism means higher taxes & a worse quality of life, when they are in fact paying through the nose & having their lives made worse as a result of things as they are.
These people growing their own vegetables & installing their own solar panels may not have the global ecosystem in mind, or even care about it, but they are going down that road nonetheless, & they should be commended & encouraged.
I live in hope that the credit crunch will make people aware that there is, in fact, no point in keeping up with the Joneses as you should live with reference to your own standards & values rather than by comparison with your fellow twats.
Neil - I'd love to see solar panels fitted to every dwelling by the government. If every home had its own source of power, they'd barely be any need for mass energy production.
Alas, it's a pipe dream as it's seen as impractical and too costly
Thoughts on the Severn barrage??
It's easy to be against things, what's difficult is to see a different way forwards and develop an alternative vision of progress.
So I think I'm half with Asquith on this.
Perhaps the government should have continued with research into nuclear fusion (not fission)!
Don't hold your breath for fusion. The 'fast track' has construction starting on commercial power plants in 50 years. I'd be amazed if I live to see it.
The most depressing road map in history: http://www.iter.org/pics/long-term.jpg
Post a Comment