Government goes for Nuclear Power
There will be a range of different responses to yesterday's deal with EDF to finally construct the first in a new generation of British nuclear reactors.
Some people will play the tired record about how we should rely entirely on much more renewables. Others will be concerned about the cost.
My view is to thank God that at long last Britain has finally started something we should have begun ten years ago.
There is no one magic bullet to meet our energy needs. Coal is cheap but far too dirty. Gas makes us dependent on Putin's Russia (and also releases lot's of carbon.) Renewables have a place but cannot be relied on to provide load at peak time. (Wind power only works when the wind is blowing at the right speed, tidal power works twice a day.) Hydro-electric power is otherwise almost perfect but requires dams, which means you have to flood the area upstream of the dam, and we don't have lots of empty valleys in this country.
There is a strong case for making more use of shale gas provided we are very careful to check the local environmental impact, but this seems to be upsetting even more people than nuclear power at the moment, and it isn't a low carbon energy source.
If we want our energy mix to include something which can provide a major part of the base power load at all times, is not dependent on russian gas, doesn't release lots of carbon, and is much cheaper than wind power, there is one game in town, and that is nuclear power.
I am not suggestiing nuclear power should be our only answer to the energy issue, not least because we have left it far too late to a sole answer. I also support more renewables and measures to conserve energy. And, frankly, in the short term I don't see any alternative to more use of electricity from gas, whether drilled or bought from Putin.
But nuclear has to be part of the mix.
Some people will play the tired record about how we should rely entirely on much more renewables. Others will be concerned about the cost.
My view is to thank God that at long last Britain has finally started something we should have begun ten years ago.
There is no one magic bullet to meet our energy needs. Coal is cheap but far too dirty. Gas makes us dependent on Putin's Russia (and also releases lot's of carbon.) Renewables have a place but cannot be relied on to provide load at peak time. (Wind power only works when the wind is blowing at the right speed, tidal power works twice a day.) Hydro-electric power is otherwise almost perfect but requires dams, which means you have to flood the area upstream of the dam, and we don't have lots of empty valleys in this country.
There is a strong case for making more use of shale gas provided we are very careful to check the local environmental impact, but this seems to be upsetting even more people than nuclear power at the moment, and it isn't a low carbon energy source.
If we want our energy mix to include something which can provide a major part of the base power load at all times, is not dependent on russian gas, doesn't release lots of carbon, and is much cheaper than wind power, there is one game in town, and that is nuclear power.
I am not suggestiing nuclear power should be our only answer to the energy issue, not least because we have left it far too late to a sole answer. I also support more renewables and measures to conserve energy. And, frankly, in the short term I don't see any alternative to more use of electricity from gas, whether drilled or bought from Putin.
But nuclear has to be part of the mix.
Comments
Alex Cunningham (Lab, Stockton North)
I think that just 25 people have benefited from the green deal in my constituency so far, but thousands of people across Stockton-on-Tees could have warmer homes thanks to a tremendous project to externally clad their homes run by the borough council and deliverer partner, Go Warm. This has attracted £20 million of investment and 300 jobs. Sadly, a legal judgment means that BT is the only company that can remove the eyelets that support the wires in the houses that are benefiting from the scheme. This is slowing the programme down because of insufficient resources to do the work in a reasonable time. Will the Minister please intervene, tell BT to get its act together, get the work done more quickly and give my constituents the warmth they deserve?
my questions would have been
1. what legal judgement says only BT can do this?
2. Why as the MP for your constituents dont you do this you are asking yourself?
3. why would "the minster" to whom he is refring have any right to do this for the people of Stockton North?
4. Why does anyone "deserve" warmth? if people wanted house cladding then they would have had it done.
5. As a BT customer for many years I could accuse BT of many things, but denying me warmth is certainly not one of them.
Its this exact joke of an MP that makes me wonder at times, it really does
2
going back to an earlier post you see why so many people are turned off? these are supposed to be the most educated people in society elected to represent the view of 100,000 people. and he isnt able to even phone BT himself. even when we the taxpayer are paying his phone bill.