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

Robert Schwartz 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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …