In today's edition of the Guardian (U.K.):
Surrounded by some of the world's roughest seas, Britain could generate a fifth of its electricity by harnessing the power of tides and waves.To which Tim Worstall replied:
The potential of marine energy is revealed in a report by the government's energy advisers. Wave and tidal power could replace the electricity that is currently produced by UK nuclear power stations, they state, and could prevent the need for Britain to rely on increased Russian gas imports.
Wave and tide power are indeed interesting sources of electricity. But, umm, why use it to replace nuclear? Why not get 20% (roughly the current share) from nuclear, 20% from tide and wave? Then we'd be even better little global citizens, wouldn't we?Once again, we see yet another example of blinkered thinking. Worstall is correct here: There is no reason why nations can't leverage both wave energy and nuclear power in order to offset imports of natural gas. In fact, forgoing either option would put the world that much further away from achieving any sort of meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while building the new baseload electric generating capacity the world will need so much in the years to come.
Thanks to Filibuster for the pointer to the Guardian article.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Electricity, Natural Gas, Russia, Electricity, Wave Energy