Skip to main content

U.K. Energy Review Published

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.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...