The threat of a gas shortage has loomed large in the headlines this week. Whilst the threat seems limited to heavy industrial users, the cold-snap, talk of a cold winter (and heavy snow in the next few days) has set everybody thinking about our increasing energy usage.
The Guardian’s leader argues for long-term thinking on our energy policy, and it’s a call I agree with. We’re all too happy to turn up the heating rather than put a thicker jumper on, and run fuel inefficient cars, but not to actually discuss where we should be generating our energy. Our nuclear energy installations are nearing the end of their active life adds, if you’ll excuse the following analogy, further fuel to the fire.
I’m a bit on the fence these days. A few years ago, the idea of a new generation of nuclear reactors was abhorrent. However, the last few years has led me to reconsider this. Whilst it’s clear there are inherent risks and problems associated with highly-radioactive fuel and reactors, the almost complete lack of carbon emissions makes it a compelling solution to our energy needs, without further clogging up the planet’s atmosphere. We’ve improved post-processing significantly, and if further consideration, research and debate on how we deal with spent fuel is undertaken, we can improve this most concerning aspect of it. Security also remains a serious concern, especially given the events of the last few years.
Earlier this year, I watched Marcel Theroux’s ‘The end of the world as we know it’ and was struck (and a little take aback) by his well considered argument that, in the short-term at least, Nuclear power provides the least-worst option for our energy needs, especially if we accept the premise that global warming is active and causing problems now.
The debate is therefore much needed, and I hope that, as Channel 4 news’ Jon Snow suggested the other day, we might see some of the ‘green’ organisations actually coming down in favour of Nuclear power for the debate that would surely provoke. As for my opinion, I’m reluctantly thinking that nuclear may be the way we have to go, at least until Nuclear fusion becomes a reality, but that’s 30+ years away.
November 25th, 2005 at 12:03 am
It is a debate that has been a long time coming. I was impressed (about a year ago) when David Bellamy made the case for Nuclear Power. I have been watching and listening with some interest in this debate and have slowly come to the conclusion that, Nuclear is the way to go, but at the same time, we could also still explore other alternatives.
‘Windmills’ are not proving efficient and to generate enough power the UK would have to be covered with them.
I know Scotland could generate enough for their own use with Hydro-Electric once upon a time but increased energy use stopped this. Wonder if they have any plans to develop this further.
November 25th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Mavis, the Scottish Executive has decided to blight the landscape with 200-foot high megapylons to export electricity from (further landscape blotting) wind farms for the purposes of exporting power south of the border. My scepticism about nuclear is also linked to having a dim memory of the threat that Scotland could be used as a “nuclear dustbin” for the radioactive waste (maybe that would facilitate the task of mountain resuce teams as the ramblers exposed on the bare slopes might glow in the dark!).
On one of my “hard hat” missions, I visited the facility in Culham where the highlight involved watching a very slowed down piece of film showing a brief flicker of plasma, a rather ghostly, ethereal purple cloud similar to the apparitions on the photographs in The Sixth Sense. The trouble is that in spite of the billions that have been poured into research we are not substantially closer to unlocking a more benign form of atomic energy - in Culham (this was about 10 years ago), the forecast (by scientists who desperately wanted to maintain their level of funding) was 30 years as the best case scenario - my point being that it always seems to be a goal 30 years ahead, permanently receeding from view like Eurydice’s forlorn and insubstantial shade.
November 25th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Chameleon
You are right about your ‘dim’ memory. Also the Lakes, Derbyshire Peaks. Its always the better places.
So sorry that Scotland is being blighted by 200 foot megaplyons and more windfarms. Why did the Scots not insist that the English pay for cables to go underground? I love Scotland and its insanity to blight beauty, we don’t have enough of it as it is.
November 25th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Tell me about it mavis, and I’m sorry to hear that the Lakes, Derbyshire peaks etc are also to be scarified! Even though I am a card-carrying member of the SNP, I don’t always blame the English
I suspect the Scottish Power company/the Executive can’t be bothered to invest in what would in all likelihood prove the more expensive option of laying underground cables as this might impinge on the projected profit margins. I love the highlands and other unsullied beauty spots outside Scotland and it saddens me that they are to be ruined.