Date published: 2006/03/06
The BBC says:
Building new nuclear plants is not the answer to tackling climate change or securing Britain's energy supply, a government advisory panel has reported.
The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035.
The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks.
...
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the SDC, commented: "There's little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages."The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises - there simply isn't one."
...
Research by the SDC suggests that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only provide an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010).
...
"With a combination of low carbon innovation strategy and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables, the UK would become a leader in low-carbon technologies," the SDC claims.
Well the SDC makes the obvious point that nobody yet knows how to deal with the problem of nuclear waste (thank god for experts). But Porritt rather shoots his own case when he says there is no "easy fix". Nobody ever claimed that nuclear power was all or even most of the solution to the carbon "problem". And the SDC goes down its own fantasy trip by suggesting (in common with many other academic types) that "aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables" are most of the solution. Both are only part of the solution. The SDC, and the other similar organisations, should be forced to give very believable (and not just "mom and apple pie") evidence that indeed this wonderful carbon-free world can happen without sacrificing the lifestyle of the citizens of the UK. Otherwise they should be honest and say "we want to solve the problem by making Britain poorer". (Of course these people are all rich, so will not be the ones who suffer.)
The SDC is also keen on distributed energy generation, which of course nuclear power is the antithesis of. This idea is just part of the anti-commercial mentality rife amongst the so-called environmentalists. Sure distributed energy generation has some advantages. But growing your own food also has its own advantages, yet most people are better off for not having to do so. And the distributed energy bandwagon seems awfully similar to lots of other bandwagons which look great until you think about it for ten minutes. The people who promote these bandwagons should put their money where their mouth is. And sure, rich people with lots of land would be wise to put in their own wind and solar supply, because it provides you with your own secure energy supply. But most people are not rich. (Of course Porritt is best buddies with Prince Charles, which probably clouds his idea about the wealth of the average citizen of the UK.)
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").