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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…