Coal plant hypocrisy
I agree with those who oppose the construction of new Coal-fired power stations unless they have carbon capture technology.
But a high proportion of those who take this position are among those whose luddite opposition to new nuclear plants created the problem in the first place.
Britain should have started to commission a new generation of nuclear plants at least five years ago, and the Labour government's conversion to this policy, while welcome, is very late.
We need new power capacity or the lights will start to go out. In the short term this will almost certainly have to include some fossil fuel power plants, although I am convinced that we should insist on carbon capture technology being included.
There are some people who will say that no form of subsidy should be available to nuclear plants or to any other power form they dislike. This view is only defensible if you believe that there is no evidence of damage to the environment caused by human activity. I consider that we have to keep using our minds and continually reassessing the evidence, and treating anyone who takes a different view the way the medieval church treated heretics is not a good idea. However, the balance of evidence is that human activity can affect the environment, and therefore on the precautionary principle we need to treat the possibility that releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere may have serious consequences extremely seriously.
And if you do believe that we need to control carbon release, then you must bear in mind that the cheapest forms of energy, at least in the short term, are the dirtiest. If you go for a complete free market in energy and no subsidies of any kind, the outcome will be an energy supply situation dominated by "dirty" coal and gas.
However, it is perfectly possible to construct an energy market which has a level playing field for the various types of clean energy, and greater taxes for more polluting forms of energy of other support for the cleaner forms. And if you have such a system, combined with a guarantee that it will be in place for long enough to allow generating companies to plan for the construction of power plants, nuclear power is the cheapest form of low-carbon energy.
But a high proportion of those who take this position are among those whose luddite opposition to new nuclear plants created the problem in the first place.
Britain should have started to commission a new generation of nuclear plants at least five years ago, and the Labour government's conversion to this policy, while welcome, is very late.
We need new power capacity or the lights will start to go out. In the short term this will almost certainly have to include some fossil fuel power plants, although I am convinced that we should insist on carbon capture technology being included.
There are some people who will say that no form of subsidy should be available to nuclear plants or to any other power form they dislike. This view is only defensible if you believe that there is no evidence of damage to the environment caused by human activity. I consider that we have to keep using our minds and continually reassessing the evidence, and treating anyone who takes a different view the way the medieval church treated heretics is not a good idea. However, the balance of evidence is that human activity can affect the environment, and therefore on the precautionary principle we need to treat the possibility that releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere may have serious consequences extremely seriously.
And if you do believe that we need to control carbon release, then you must bear in mind that the cheapest forms of energy, at least in the short term, are the dirtiest. If you go for a complete free market in energy and no subsidies of any kind, the outcome will be an energy supply situation dominated by "dirty" coal and gas.
However, it is perfectly possible to construct an energy market which has a level playing field for the various types of clean energy, and greater taxes for more polluting forms of energy of other support for the cleaner forms. And if you have such a system, combined with a guarantee that it will be in place for long enough to allow generating companies to plan for the construction of power plants, nuclear power is the cheapest form of low-carbon energy.
Comments