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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment