Tucked away in this week’s policies statement from the Tory-Lib Dem coalition is a paragraph that shocked me.
Since the Lib Dems have principled objections to more nuclear power plants, it says, they will be allowed to opt out of policy-making or Commons votes involving these nasty things.
Has nobody noticed that the new Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, is himself a Lib Dem? He proclaimed on Thursday: ‘The renewables industry will come of age under this government.’
Last week, he said there is no reason to stop a consortium building some new nuclear power stations in Britain, but ‘on the key principle that there will be no public subsidy’.
If even half of what Huhne says is sincere, if Britain does not start some nuclear plants fast, by 2020 you are likely to find your lights going out without touching any switches, and the whole economy imperilled.
If the Government really intends to refuse financial support - while continuing to pour our cash into wind and wave power, and other objects of green worship - no nuclear plants will happen.
Far from Huhne’s remarks promising policies that will deliver us from a looming energy crisis, the new Energy Secretary is effectively assuring us that they will not.
Without financial guarantees - which only government can provide - there is no possibility that private enterprise will invest the billions needed for a new generation of nuclear plants.
Here, then, is a first poisoned apple from coalition government. Huhne’s party see themselves as environmental visionaries.
foodimista wrote:Well why doesn't Mr Hastings invest a few of his millions if he thinks nuclear is such a good deal?
He won't because his view seems to be that nuclear isn't viable without state subsidy, or at least state guarentees, and these are apparently not going to be forthcoming.
The government must be planning on a dash for gas.
foodimista wrote:Well why doesn't Mr Hastings invest a few of his millions if he thinks nuclear is such a good deal?
He won't because his view seems to be that nuclear isn't viable without state subsidy, or at least state guarentees, and these are apparently not going to be forthcoming.
The government must be planning on a dash for gas.
I think he's right on this point. If the Govt are serious that new nuclear will have to be funded entirely in the private sector, I can't see many, if any, new plants being constructed. The cost of nuclear is astronomical when you factor in all aspects, including decommissioning. The insurance alone would probably be enough to put off most investors.
It's a cunning ruse by the LibDems. If they insist on private money alone bankrolling new nuclear plants, it's equivalent to a veto. Plus, they can play up to the Tories' worship of all things private sector, and ultimately kill off new nuclear plants. The Tories must be pretty dim if they haven't twigged that one.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
We are heading for a crisis whatever happens - there isn't anything, nuclear or otherwise, which can be built in time to prevent it.
However, with smart grids and smart meters I reckon there is a lot which can be done to manage the decline.
I am in favour of nuclear plants for applications where only nuclear will do -namely industrial scale activity. But I think that for every good reason there is, there needs to be full public engagement in the development of renewables at every scale.
UK manufacturing needs to be supported with energy provision. Domestic consumption however is far more discretionary IMHO and the public need to realise this. But it could lead to something beneficial, namely a change in attitude toward energy and environmental responsibility.
Andy Hunt wrote:We are heading for a crisis whatever happens - there isn't anything, nuclear or otherwise, which can be built in time to prevent it.
However, with smart grids and smart meters I reckon there is a lot which can be done to manage the decline.
I am in favour of nuclear plants for applications where only nuclear will do -namely industrial scale activity. But I think that for every good reason there is, there needs to be full public engagement in the development of renewables at every scale.
UK manufacturing needs to be supported with energy provision. Domestic consumption however is far more discretionary IMHO and the public need to realise this. But it could lead to something beneficial, namely a change in attitude toward energy and environmental responsibility.
I suspect the sheeple won't see the need to agree with you Andy.
They're all far too busy consuming every new power hungry device that comes on to the market.
Andy Hunt wrote:We are heading for a crisis whatever happens - there isn't anything, nuclear or otherwise, which can be built in time to prevent it.
However, with smart grids and smart meters I reckon there is a lot which can be done to manage the decline.
I am in favour of nuclear plants for applications where only nuclear will do -namely industrial scale activity. But I think that for every good reason there is, there needs to be full public engagement in the development of renewables at every scale.
UK manufacturing needs to be supported with energy provision. Domestic consumption however is far more discretionary IMHO and the public need to realise this. But it could lead to something beneficial, namely a change in attitude toward energy and environmental responsibility.
I suspect the sheeple won't see the need to agree with you Andy.
They're all far too busy consuming every new power hungry device that comes on to the market.
It's true that there are lots of power hungry devices on the market, wide screen tellys etc. But there are also lots of surprisingly power efficient devices too - for example, I am typing this using an iPhone which consumes just a few watts for web surfing, as opposed to a desktop PC at 500W, a router, cable modem etc etc.
And I also think you'll find that by far the most heavy duty domestic appliances are the washing machine, dishwasher, hob, fridge etc.
I really do think there is scope for savings. Maybe we need a massive hike in the price of energy to persuade people it's something worth getting passionate about.
The average Nepalese's carbon footprint is about 100kg per annum. The average Briton's is about 9 tonnes. It's a joke to suggest we can't do without and still survive and be happy.
Andy Hunt wrote:The average Nepalese's carbon footprint is about 100kg per annum. The average Briton's is about 9 tonnes. It's a joke to suggest we can't do without and still survive and be happy.
Very true. I've done a few of these on-line CO2 calculators and come in between 1.5 tons and 2.9 per annum - and that's a rich westerner who realises where his energy use is worst and needs dealing with.
I am not deprived by being a third as bad as the average - au contraire: I have too much stuff and consume too much and am working on reducing it. It's fun!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Andy Hunt wrote:The average Nepalese's carbon footprint is about 100kg per annum. The average Briton's is about 9 tonnes. It's a joke to suggest we can't do without and still survive and be happy.
Very true. I've done a few of these on-line CO2 calculators and come in between 1.5 tons and 2.9 per annum - and that's a rich westerner who realises where his energy use is worst and needs dealing with.
I am not deprived by being a third as bad as the average - au contraire: I have too much stuff and consume too much and am working on reducing it. It's fun!
Likewise. I have been collecting data on my lifestyle for a few weeks to try to gauge my carbon footprint. I last worked it out a couple of weeks ago to approximately this:
0.5 tonnes - electricity (don't use gas)
1.1 tonnes - food
2.0 tonnes - daily commute (tram and car)
apparently the average sustainable global carbon footprint is about 2 tonnes per capita. If I can get a job close to home (or if I lose my job) I might achieve that.
One thing to note though - one flight, even short haul to Europe, and no Westerner could meet that 2 tonnes target.
Andy you just need to add now another 2 tonnes for your share of the UK public sector carbon emissions, hospitals, schools, government, armed forces etc.
so we are already over the sustainable equitable share of global carbon emissions just by being here!
goslow wrote:Andy you just need to add now another 2 tonnes for your share of the UK public sector carbon emissions, hospitals, schools, government, armed forces etc.
so we are already over the sustainable equitable share of global carbon emissions just by being here!
I'm sure you're right goslow, do you have a source for that please? I can include it in my calculations.
Andy Hunt wrote:The average Nepalese's carbon footprint is about 100kg per annum. The average Briton's is about 9 tonnes. It's a joke to suggest we can't do without and still survive and be happy.
goslow wrote:Andy you just need to add now another 2 tonnes for your share of the UK public sector carbon emissions, hospitals, schools, government, armed forces etc.
so we are already over the sustainable equitable share of global carbon emissions just by being here!
I do recall a couple of these CO2 calculators added that share in - though don't ask me which ones, I've done so many of 'em.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
