As you might expect, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech last night backing new nuclear build in the U.K. is stoking conversation across the Atlantic. Here's Peter C. Glover:
As you might imagine, there's plenty of impassioned opposition. One good example comes from The Low Carbon Kid:
Our new friends at Potential Energy have started an open thread on the speech and are inviting comments. Be sure to stop by and add yours.
Other stories:
Blair says nuclear power back on the agenda (Reuters)
PM backs new wave of nuclear power stations (The Independent)
Blair puts nuclear power plants back on the agenda (The Irish Times)
Nuclear battle with Wales looms... (ic Wales)
Nuclear power won't need tax cash (The Scotsman)
Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis (The Times)
As always, keep up with the latest online conversation with Technorati.
UPDATE: More from Andrew Sullivan.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, United Kingdom, Natural Gas
Though nuclear power is not the whole answer, until a sensible alternative comes along - and 'renewables' are about as sensible an answer as lighting a match under water - then nuclear power will have to produce around 20% of our future needs, at least - and cut carbon emissions to almost nil.Actually, that's pretty tough on renewables. Here at NEI, we believe new nuclear build will make the electric grid safe for intermittent power sources like renewables. Here's Tim Sewell:
The environmentalists would soon go quiet once the blackouts, failure of cold water, cold houses and aged deaths started to occur under their crackpot schemes.
Tony Blair has outraged elements of the green movement with his speech last night putting energy diversification back on the agenda "with a vengeance"’.If you're a regular reader, you'll familiarair with the arguments that he makes. Check them out right now. As it turned out, just as Blair was giving his CBI speech, climate scientist James Lovelock was delivering his own in support of nuclear energy at the 2006 Brighton Festival. Click here for an account from Donald Clark.
Why would this be? Because he sees a resurgence in nuclear generation capacity as a central plank of any such programme, which would also include a major push on energy efficiency and renewables. I can see his point.
As he said, we will soon move from being 80-90% self-sufficient in gas (which on present trends will become our main source of energy very soon, for electricity generation, at least) to being dependent by a similar proportion on imported supplies from those noted areas of incorruptible political stability, Russia, the Middle East and Asia. This can't be allowed to happen for two main reasons.
As you might imagine, there's plenty of impassioned opposition. One good example comes from The Low Carbon Kid:
The Low Carbon Kid says: politics and nuclear power make an explosive combination. When they are in bed together you can be sure, as wrong decisions can be taken for the right reasons, it will end in tears.For more carping, visit Peter Black in Wales.
So many have told you Mr Blair that nukes - for reasons of timing, security, the long view and expense - are that wrong decision.
Listen, for once.... or leave - and turn the light off as you go.
Our new friends at Potential Energy have started an open thread on the speech and are inviting comments. Be sure to stop by and add yours.
Other stories:
Blair says nuclear power back on the agenda (Reuters)
PM backs new wave of nuclear power stations (The Independent)
Blair puts nuclear power plants back on the agenda (The Irish Times)
Nuclear battle with Wales looms... (ic Wales)
Nuclear power won't need tax cash (The Scotsman)
Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis (The Times)
As always, keep up with the latest online conversation with Technorati.
UPDATE: More from Andrew Sullivan.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, United Kingdom, Natural Gas
Comments
When you become dependant on one source of energy you are more vulnerable to volatility. What's going on with oil and gasoline prices? What happened to natural gas prices when the U.S. built essentially all gas capacity over the last decade?
It's not a matter of us sucking up to environmentalists. It's a matter of understanding how the market works. Think about it.
Are you NUTS!?
You can't call me nuts and then not have anything to back that up.
Here are a couple of quotes from links I just googled:
"Diverse economies are more robust to shocks in the world economy; diverse portfolios are more robust to market fluctuations; and diverse collections of human capital lead to more robust income streams. The economic perspective on robustness and diversity is perhaps best captured by the adage "don't put all of your eggs in one basket.""
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~spage
/robust.htm
Here are some other thoughts at this group's blog on Hurricane Katrina:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/katrina-
underscores-need-for-energy-
diversity
And here's a quote from Senator Domenici. If you don't know him, he's the Senate Energy Chairman and knows what he's talking about:
“This energy bill is the right choice for American jobs and our national economy. In the face of a growing natural gas crisis, it is the only choice. We must increase domestic production of natural gas. We must diversify America’s energy supply. That’s what President Bush has been saying for two years. That’s what House and Senate Republicans have been trying to do.
“More than 90 percent of the electricity generation built in this country since 1996 relies solely on natural gas. That reliance on one energy source is what got us into this mess. We must get more of our electricity from nuclear energy, clean coal, hydropower, wind and solar energy. S. 14 does just that.
“This natural gas crisis is hitting consumers hard. It will hit them harder this winter. It’s forcing industry to move manufacturing operations overseas, taking high-paying American jobs with them. It’s past time for us to pass comprehensive energy legislation that diversifies our energy supply and increases our energy production. If we had done this two years ago, we might not have this crisis today. I am a strong advocate of conservation, but we can’t simply conserve our way out of this problem. We must act, for the sake of our economy and American jobs.”
You have to come up with something better than name calling. Or is that all you can do?