Skip to main content

U.K. Energy Review Published

By Eric McErlain
The long anticipated U.K. Energy Review was published earlier today by the Department of Trade and Industry, and it includes a strong endorsement for keeping nuclear as a part of that nation's energy mix. And though the review also recommends increased use of renewable sources of energy (U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to increase the amount of energy generated by renewables by a factor of five in just the next 15 years), anti-nukes are still coming out in droves to grouse about the review.

Then again, some critics seem to realize their arguments are running out of ammunition. Case in point: Here's columnist George Monbiot, who after debunking a number of familiar canards about the industry, still doesn't want to listen to reason:
Some of our arguments against nuclear power have collapsed, but it seems to me that the case is still robust.
Here's another idea: Instead of digging in your heels in opposition, why not engage in a real conversation with the international nuclear industry on issues of concern like used fuel and nonproliferation and help develop some solutions?

As Patrick Moore has pointed out repeatedly, the global environmental movement has spent 4 decades perfecting the art of opposition without having to offer any solutions of its own. Might it not be time to follow a new strategy given the dire consequences so many prominent environmentalists are predicting are in store for the earth?

Here's what a spokesman at 10 Downing Street had to say about that line of thinking:
"Wishful thinking will not keep the lights on. You have to think hard about the energy gap. The reality is, if we do nothing, the amount of energy we get from nuclear will decline from 20% to 6%.

"What you will see in the energy review is that there will be a big increase in renewable energy. There will be a big increase in energy efficiency moves and that will deliver more electricity, but that in itself will not be enough to make up the shortfall and therefore you do need nuclear."
More later, as we continue to gauge reaction from around the English speaking world.

UPDATE: Freedom for Fission has a lot to say. First, he praises the energy review, and then muses for a little while on potential reactor designs. The trade association representing British manufacturers likes what it sees too. Piglito has some constructive suggestions.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Fat Man said…
Enviromentalists do not want to solve problems. They want to be problems.
July 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
It's not the industry's job to engage in debate or discussion. That's what independent pro-nuclear people are for--you must see that an industry group will abandon technology that does not conform to their bottom line, and can't really afford to be policy analysts.
July 12, 2006 at 2:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more