Going nuclear
Progressive Contrarian | 18.05.2006 12:28 | Analysis | Ecology | Technology
Predictably Tony Blair has come out strongly in favour of nuclear energy. Forget the energy review from 3 years ago (it got the answer wrong, so the government has convened a second one in the hope that they get the nuclear answer right...). Forget the £70 billion decommissioning cost of the existing nuclear power stations. Forget also that long term storage of waste hasn't been solved...
The sudden note of urgency doesn't make much sense, even with the Russians, Venezualans, Iranians and others flexing their energy muscles. Nuclear doesn't drive cars or provide gas for domestic heating or cooking. Neither does the global warming argument stack up.
The best answers to energy use and carbon emissions are micro-generation, renewables and increasing energy efficiency. Why are these not attractive to governments, particularly to centralising governments like Tony Blair's? Because they are decentralised, small scale and don't provide the government with the testosterone rush that huge centrally controlled projects provide. Like unreconstructed Stalinists, centralising governments of all persuasions are fatally attracted to 'prestigious' monuments - such as huge dams and nuclear power stations.
Whatever the reasoning, the move towards nuclear will be a disastrous mistake.
The sudden note of urgency doesn't make much sense, even with the Russians, Venezualans, Iranians and others flexing their energy muscles. Nuclear doesn't drive cars or provide gas for domestic heating or cooking. Neither does the global warming argument stack up.
The best answers to energy use and carbon emissions are micro-generation, renewables and increasing energy efficiency. Why are these not attractive to governments, particularly to centralising governments like Tony Blair's? Because they are decentralised, small scale and don't provide the government with the testosterone rush that huge centrally controlled projects provide. Like unreconstructed Stalinists, centralising governments of all persuasions are fatally attracted to 'prestigious' monuments - such as huge dams and nuclear power stations.
Whatever the reasoning, the move towards nuclear will be a disastrous mistake.
Progressive Contrarian
Homepage:
http://progcontra.blogspot.com
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
fusion:offworld, perhaps. fission=vortex. wottawaste2go. ps. . . .
18.05.2006 17:10
That old d.t.i. error with the decimal point doesnt detract from the sense in wave power, + solar. . . . less slushfunds, less ways to abuse the "spin-off" s -
but "thats the way the worldsgoingdownthebog" - with a shrug'n'a backhander - imminence - a couple of years if we play the "inertia" game any more - yet alternates are plenty, a good future that does include EVERYBODY .
THE MAIN "PS" IS THAT THE INDYMEDIA EVENTS GRID IS COVERED IN "CHERN - 20 YEARS ON" DONT FORGET TO....FTMCH!!!!
PERHAPS SOME MUTANTS GOT A "BACKHANDER" TO THE EVENTS GRIDs WATCHERS WATCHERS WATCHERS .... OR SOMETHING.
PPS COULD YA DUMP THE SEXCAMP REFERENCES TOO.
THANKS.
FFFFNNNN OH ALRIGHT THEN.
PPPS; good comments on the "library"newswire - mmmm
mutants against stupidity
generate locally
18.05.2006 23:07
Danny
Misconceptions
02.06.2006 14:30
Anyway, what would be so weird about a government supporting nuclear? Just look at the French, Hungarians, Finns, Ukranians, Turks, Indians, Americans, Canadians, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Brazilians, Mexicans. There's nothing odd about nuclear power!
Nuclear power is safe and perfectly legal, it just hasn't made economic sense to build for the last ten years because of problems with planning procedures (witness crossrail, west coast main line, and the eurotunnel highspeed link as examples only from the rail industry). Those problems should have been sorted years ago, but sadly it was John Prescott's job.
In the last White Paper the likes of Margaret Beckett blocked any technology-neutral low-carbon incentives because she knew it would lead to more nuclear. Her mistakes are now being undone having been shown up in only three years.
No public money will go to pay for the waste from any new plants either - just for the 'legacy' of the national programme which did two things: gave us 20% of our electricity for 50 years (not to be sniffed at windmill fans), and gave us nuclear weaponry (scary, but pretty handy on the world stage, you must admit). The decision to go ahead with that programme was made in 1948 and Britain has been a nuclear nation ever since.
Oh and by the way, there are well accepted ways to dispose of the nasty stuff.
So, ok, people don't 'like' nuclear power. Oh diddums! I don't 'like' steel foundrys but I admit that steel is pretty useful stuff and I'm perfectly content for it to be part of the world and don't bother campaigning against them.
Jeremy