Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Blair says new nuclear plants are essential

by Jerome a Paris Thu May 18th, 2006 at 05:23:07 AM EST


Green light to new fleet of N-reactors

Tony Blair's determination to restart Britain's nuclear energy programme has never been in doubt. Even so, his comments on the issue in last night's speech to the CBI employers' organisation were highly significant.

For this will be seen as the moment when the prime minister finally pushed the button on the long-awaited decision to relaunch a new fleet of nuclear reactors.

His commitment - pre-empting the release of the results of the forthcoming energy review - triggered immediate anger from environmental groups.

"Increasingly it looks like the energy consultation has been a complete sham," said Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth. (...)

More below...

From the diaries, with format edit ~ whataboutbob


First, Mr Blair believes that without a renewal of the nuclear programme, it will not be possible to meet the UK's targets for the reduction in carbon emissions.

"There is a range of difficulties - technical ones - that make it impossible to meet those targets through the use of renewable energy, such as wind power," said one close ally. "People are in favour of wind power but then they resist the idea of technology being put in their area."

Second, there is energy security. If policy remains unchanged, Mr Blair argues, the UK will see a gradual scaling back in power generated from the nuclear sector. But that will also coincide with increasing reliance on foreign imports of gas as domestic gas production declines.

More from this other article:


Blair says new nuclear plants are essential

Anticipating the results of an energy review to be published by his government in the next few months, the prime minister left no doubt that Britain's ageing nuclear reactors would be replaced.

If Mr Blair carries the day, it would mean that nuclear power would continue to provide at least 20 per cent of the UK's total energy needs in 2025.

 Mr Blair told the CBI, Britain's employer organisation, that he had this week received an early draft of the energy review. He said the implications of the report - for Britain's climate change targets and energy security - were stark.

"By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions," he said. "We will become heavily dependent on gas and, at the same time, move from being 80-90 per cent self-reliant in gas to 80-90 per cent dependent on foreign imports - mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia."

Mr Blair said: "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency - engaging both business and consumers - back on the agenda with a vengeance."

The prime minister has been indicating privately for some time that the energy review - and a subsequent white paper - would give the go-ahead to the nuclear programme. Tuesday night's comments, coming just weeks before the review is published, now put the review's conclusions beyond doubt.

Mr Blair's decision to give a foretaste of the review's conclusions is part of a new effort on his part to show that his government has a strong policy agenda.

The commitment to wind seems contradictory: publicly favorable, but privately skeptical seems the message.

But that's the political reality: however strange that may be, nuclear is less controversial than wind - maybe because opponents to wind do not appear to be kooky leftists and are taken more seriously than they should?

Display:
Wind isn't macho enough: not manly. Those windfarms look like flowers for godsake.

And wind projects are too small: it's hard to guarantee your friends will get all the contracts.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 09:14:27 AM EST
I think that wind has no guts while nuclear has guts and cojones. yes...When there is no oil...your gut tells you that you need a huge replacement. An energy with cojones and guts...that is: nuclear.

It is amazing..but yes S.Colbert is a genius.

Other than that.. I would love nuclear to substitute coal and wind to substitute nuclear...or well. wind to substitute coal and keep the number of nuclear power stations constant..

I hope this will be the final outcome.. but I am sure this is not what the gut tells Blair.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 07:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well of course blair wants nukes...

jesus told him to.

soapy demagogue, the artful dodger, amiably rascal, with the drilled out eyes of the true sociopath...

the nemesis of british politics, faustian protagonist writ large on the pages of planetary history.

how to combine cheek, charm and the wiles of a serpent in one telegenic package; history will not be kind to this war criminal, while carlyle almost certainly will.

move over john major!

resign, tony, before the backwash reaches your ears!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 01:12:47 PM EST
Random, perhaps silly thought: how about requiring that any utility wanting to build nuclear power has to add an equal amount of renewable power production.
by MarekNYC on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 01:33:30 PM EST
And maybe requiring any utility building renewable power to add an equal amount of nuclear power?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 05:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't get it, do you? Renewables are fuel-less and non-polluting. This is not about being fair and balanced towards poor nukes.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am just being silly, just like the above quota system is silly.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, that quota system is silly.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm moderately pro-nuclear - that is I believe that it is preferable to fossil fuel plants considering global warming. I am strongly pro-renewable power, seeing it as preferable to nuclear. However, I don't think that renewables on their own are enough. I would like to see those preferences enacted as public policy - so, discourage fossil fuel plants, let's start building nuclear power plants again, but let's also strongly encourage rapid growth in renewable power.

As for markets deciding - all depends on how you regulate them, and energy markets have always been regulated one way or another, neutrality doesn't exist.

by MarekNYC on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We saw how well "electricity deregulation" worked for California.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not entirely up to date on that situation, but wasn't there other issues there too, on top of deregulation? A weak grid or to few power plants due to red tape or something like that?

Just a sidenote. Sweden and the whole of Scandinavia has a deregulated power market and it is seen as rather successful (in spite of power prices and power company profits constantly increasing...). Recently Sverker Martin-Löf, head of the powerful process industry (steel, pulp, chemicals, mining etc) lobby demanded a re-regulation of the power market.

Friends in unlikely places, yes?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A weak grid or to few power plants due to red tape or something like that?

No, that was the industry spin. In reality, there was enough capacity, but Enron and PGE gamed the system with devious tricks. For example, organising a simulataneous power-up of large industrial consumers. The California Energy Crisis was the largest scam in recent history.

it is seen as rather successful

By whom? By what standard? (This is not a retort, I don't know much about the situation there and am curious.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, by economists and pundits in a comparison with other de-regulations I guess.

The reason I think it has worked reasonably well is that there has been no need to invest in new capacity since the deregulation (in 1996) as demand growth has been slow and there were some overcapacity. And now when there is a need to invest the power companies will just uprate the nuclear power plants (by a whopping 1500 MW!), so there has luckily been no opportunity to build natural gas plants.

What people are complaining about is that Eon (owned by German interests), Fortum (owned by the Finnish state), Statkraft (owned by the Norwegian state) and Vattenfall (owned by the Swedish state) dominates the market entirely and use their market power to raise prices. This might be true. And since the vast profits of the state owned energy companies goes straight into the state budgets, they work like an indirect tax on electricity. Which means the states are not interested in doing anything about it all.

What the foolish economists are saying is that we should split the companies to increase competition. Thee result will only be that our national champions will be bought by foreign national champions and the oligopoly will continue.

Re-regulation is, imho, the only solution.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 08:24:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What people are complaining about is that Eon (owned by German interests), Fortum (owned by the Finnish state), Statkraft (owned by the Norwegian state) and Vattenfall (owned by the Swedish state) dominates the market entirely and use their market power to raise prices.

So the situation is like that of the German deregulation, apparently (except for no semi-monopolist fight against upsurging regeneratives).

Re-regulation is, imho, the only solution.

Agreed for the current macroproducers, though I'd also like major reform in the form of feed-in laws - that would create small local competitors.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 09:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason I think it has worked reasonably well is that there has been no need to invest in new capacity
Moral: don't privatize infrastructure: it won't work.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 04:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It might work with the correct regulation. Before deregulation we had many private power companies and it worked well, the French have privatized highways and it works quite well (doesn't it?).

Privatised infrastructure does not work when regulations are lax. Regulations must make sure there are enough investments. Our old power regulations demanded power companies invested a certain amount in new capacity and backup capacity etc (or really that they could guarantee there was only like one power shortage in five years or something like that, but in effect it means having to invest in capacity).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These two quotes from the  second batch of Enron tapes say it all:

"What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California," an employee is heard saying on the tapes. "You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis."

"They're on the ropes today," says another employee. "I exported like a f------g 400 megs."

"Wow,'' says another employee, "f--k 'em, right!"

"It's called lies. It's all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari, alright, so," an employee is heard saying.

The other employee says, "I feel like I'm being corrupted now."

The first employee adds, "No, this is marketing,"

"OK.''



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 09:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not really a fair comparison. The Californian "deregulation" situation had a lot of problems, including deregulation of the wholesale cost while retaining regulation of the retail cost, which made it impossible for the companies to balance demand and supply. And then when they figured this out, there was massive manipulation of the market. It was screwed up in practically every dimension and is not a good example of deregulation.

Although I agree that deregulation is not the right answer for public utilities...

by asdf on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 07:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not a serious energy policy (at least at the moment). There is an enquiry working on that. Assuming it reaches the conclusion Blair wants, the UK will then have a proper nuclear energy policy.

We will then have to see if any private company wants to pay to build a new nuclear power station. I imagine they will only do so if the taxpayer guarantees a profit and fully indemnifies them against all claims.

What Blair is actually doing is making newsworthy comments to distract attention from two problems he has.

  1. The police are continuing to investigate the loans for peerages, party funding scandal.

  2. The Home Office continues to be a disaster area, with major problems about the system for considering the deportation of foreign criminals. Tony is now advocating deporting just about all such people, even if they have to be sent to a country which is unsafe (in violation of the UN refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights). This is of course unrealistic, but by the time the court cases are decided it will probably be Gordon Brown's problem.
by Gary J on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 02:22:15 PM EST
You write "This is not a serious energy policy (at least at the moment)."

This is very interesting. What I am saying is that earlier the UK have had no energy policy. Policy making was outsourced to market players, letting them decide what plants to build.

Stating that a nuclear power program is needed is the same as saying the market does not work.

Might have something to do with the fact that a power plant is active for many decades while it seems corporations don't plan for anything beyond the next six months.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 05:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Energy is leaving the economic realm and going back into the political realm even in the US and the UK.

Also, policy is not incompatible with the market: it's called regulation. It's just that the neoliberal orthodoxy for the past couple of decades has been that the only way to have a market is to have no policy.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nor did I say policy is incompatible with the market. I only said there have been no policy in the (neoliberal) UK. Until now.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The (neoliberal) UK believed that policy was incompatible with the market. We are in agreement on that.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There has been a policy, a policy to re-start nuclear when the time is ripe, at least since 2001.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Policy making was outsourced to market players, letting them decide what plants to build.

With the exception of nuclear energy, where the policy was to keep it alive regardless, remember the British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and British Energy (BE).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Already built nuclear plants can't be closed just because they at the moment aren't turning a profit, due to low gas prices. That would be extremely short sighted and would trigger a massive electricity crisis as well as being capital destruction on a massive scale. It's just like you can't allow a major bank to go bankrupt.

And well, since BE was bailed out they have turned a profit, and as gas prices climb upwards...

I wonder if there is any plan to repay the taxpayers fot the bail-out with the new profits of BE? There should be.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 08:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Building new electric generating plants has the lowest impact on current lifestyles. Conservation as was suggested by a British ecologist I heard yesterday on the BBC would require massive infrastructure changes. Not only erecting green buildings and redesigning autos, but improving mass transit and other life altering projects.

Nuclear plants have two benefits from this point of view, they add needed electric power and they free up fossil fuels to be used to other purposes (like transportation). It's an irresistible attraction. Decommissioning plants and dealing with waste will be the next generation's problems. We won't be here to worry about it so why not do what maximizes our immediate benefits.

As is pointed frequently there is no pressure group from the unborn.

Without a commitment for sacrifice and change by the average person quick and dirty solutions will win out.

If you don't want this to happen you need to come up with an argument which provides a current benefit, not a future one.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 03:28:14 PM EST
Nuclear plants have two benefits from this point of view, they add needed electric power and they free up fossil fuels to be used to other purposes (like transportation).

In Britain, that would not mean transportation but only heating. However, electricity is such a small part of energy usage that the other side of Peak Oil will eliminate this surplus before those ten new nuclear plants are in service - and force the lifestyle change anyway. Meanwhile, you wasted a lot of tax money.

quick and dirty solutions will win out.

As per above, the fun with nuclear is that it is dirty but not quick. It also needs the State or large corporations to push it (which is a given in Bliar's Britain, see my top-level comment).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The numbers: UK electricity generation 1971-2003

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 05:49:23 PM EST
No wonder the UK ran out of gas,,, I'd like to see that graph next to a plot of the UK's Natural Gas production. It is nothing short of amazing that the UK's gas production peaked in 2000 and nothing was done at the policy level.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another nasty graph, which together with the gas situation shows what trouble the UK is in. On top of this many coal plants will have to shut down due to some EU directive or other.

Some life extensions should be possible, but there are certain problems with cracks in the graphite if I recall correctly.

Anyway, due to foolish energy policy (or really a lack of energy policy) the UK is going into an entirely homegrown electricity crisis which has nothing what so ever to do with peak oil. Fantastic.

At least I'll be able to charge my electric scooter in the foreseeable future.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 06:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Part of that foolish energy policy was a conscious policy to hold back any serious push for alternatives, in order to keep the ground open for a nuclear comeback.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I rather think that the reason renweables were not more vigourosly pursued was that they were not seen as economically viable.

We have had a pro-wind anti-nuclear government (in Sweden) since 1994. And still we only have 1 TWh per year of wind power (out of a 140 TWh consumption).

Maybe the technology wasn't yet there to build wind mills big enough to make power cheaply enough, especially as long as gas was cheap (and I'd like to add that as long as gas was cheap there was no interest in nuclear either).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 08:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I rather think that the reason renweables were not more vigourosly pursued was that they were not seen as economically viable.

As I indicated in my top-level comment, a 2001 study by Britain's own government agency arrived at the conclusion that replacement of both nuclear and much of coal/gas is not only possible but the most economical, but the study was kept under the wraps (until someone leaked it to New Scientist).

We have had a pro-wind anti-nuclear government (in Sweden) since 1994.

Well, the numbers you quote and the numbers I saw elsewhere make that only a lacklustre pro-wind government, to say the least. Snail-pace installations brought the total to only 0.5 GW by the end of 2005. Meanwhile, small Denmark (until the current anti-wind PM choked development with rule changes) installed 3.1 GW, last year generating 6.6 TWh. Countries with feed-in laws like Germany or Spain achieved more, under not the most ideal wind conditions. (If we are here, the German feed-in law helped photovoltaics to rise to 1 TWh generated last year, which could nearly double this year.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 10:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, a few per capita installation numbers:

  • Denmark: 580 W/inhabitant
  • Spain: 235 W/inhhabitant
  • Germany: 225 W/inhhabitant
  • Sweden: 55 W/inhhabitant
  • Britain: 22.5 W/inhhabitant


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 10:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just out today: Swedish state utility Vattenfall will invest in 10 TWh of renewable power generation. 0,5 TWh will be biofuels (probably cogeneration), 1-2 TWh will be uprates in hydroelectric plants and the rest (7,5-8,5 TWh) will be wind power. This will push wind power to about 5 % of Swedish power consumption.

Nuclear uprates (for all the utilities) will probably be around 10-12 TWh. This means the Swedish nuclear power plants will generate more power than they have ever done before, despite the premature losing of the two 600 MWe Barsebäck reactors.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:33:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this!

Could you link an English-language press release on the previous? I'm curious about the details. (Especially whether the wind power part will be all the utility's investment and will be owned by it, or is at least some co-ownership - say with farmers - foreseen.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In English.

There is one strange thing in this press release.

Att riksdagen beslutar om stödsystemet är en viktig förutsättning för att projekten skall kunna genomföras eftersom endast vissa vattenkraftprojekt bedöms kunna genomföras affärsmässigt utan elcertifikat.

or, in English:

An important precondition for the implementation of the projects is that parliament approves the support system, as it is estimated that it will only be possible to realise some of the hydro power projects on a commercial basis without electricity certificates.

This can mean either:

1) Without the subsidies only some hydroelectric projects are viable. That is, the wind is not viable without support.

or

2) Without the subsidies only some of the hydroelectric projects are viable (while other hydroelectric projects are not), while wind is viable without subsidies.

I am afraid alternative 2 is the correct one.

Maybe I should mail or call Vattenfall?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:58:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course I meant I am afraid alternative 1 is the correct one!

And I meant "premature closing" not "premature losing" in the above comment.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 09:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another interesting thing about the UK energy troubles.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 07:09:44 PM EST
I am sure we used to have a UK energy policy. It was called the dash for gas and was designed to enable Margaret Thatcher to crush the National Union of Mineworkers. If as many pits as possible were closed there would be less chance of industrial unrest defeating Mrs Thatcher as it had Ted Heath in 1973-74.

Once this political objective was achieved the British government stopped worrying about energy. It has only re-appeared on the political agenda recently.

This is the sort of boring, infrastructure issue that the British political class, fixated by punching above their weight in foreign policy and eye-catching initiatives (for which read badly thought out and probably counterproductive, illiberal measures on topics like crime and immigration), only reluctantly engages with.

Building a new power station, whether coal-fired or nuclear is difficult. Most localities will resist such a scheme, which is why the idea seems to be to build on existing nuclear power sites.

In another area, water supply, we see similar problems arising. The privatised industry has not made the enormous infrastructure investment the government hoped they would make. Consequently a few dry winters leaves the reservoirs and ground water supply at a low level and there are hosepipe bans in southern England now, with a threat of drought orders (preventing certain uses of water in affected areas) and even the risk of the cutting of mains water supply in some places, if things go badly this year.

It is good that the free market is so much more efficient than the state. Think how bad things would be if the Labour Party still believed in socialism.

by Gary J on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 08:37:33 PM EST
It is good that the free market is so much more efficient than the state.

"efficient" is an incomplete meme.  the necessary question is "efficient at what?"

the so-called free market is very efficient at... consolidating wealth and ownership in the hands of a fairly small elite, driving down commodity prices, wages, and living conditions to a lowest common denominator, rapidly converting natural resources into trash and living stuff into dead stuff, etc.  a genuine free market might offer other efficiencies. we don't know, since as Hardin [whom btw I do no endorse by this brief quotation, he merely happened to say one thing I agree with] said,  it's never been tried.

games theory suggests that when a system repeatedly, even with varying initial conditions, achieves the same results, those results cannot be interpreted as accidental or random.  they must be regarded, at a certain level of consistency, as design parameters of the system.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 08:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to note that the water problems also result at least in part from the policy of encouraging the growth of the South East of England at the expense of the rest of the country. The natural result has been a significant population shift over the last 20 years from areas where there is a larger natural water supply to the drier South East.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 02:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the political reality: however strange that may be, nuclear is less controversial than wind

Controversial among whom? Not the public. The part you bolded comes from Bliar. I thought you are sceptical about rhetoric coming from Bliar, which was contradicted by that Scottish study you recall me posting.

I note Bliar long pushed for nuclear, while pretending to be sitting on the fence. For example by suppressing a government study showing nuclear to be uneconomic and unnecessary, and then issuing a total re-write; by ignoring warnings from the waste management committee, and preparing secret plan after secret plan. Meanwhile, at Guardian, you'll find a lot of critical voices about this latest announcement.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 06:18:19 AM EST
Regarding whether for the public, is it wind or nuclear that is more controversial, let's consult the Eurobarometer 64.2 poll [pdf!]:

QA65 To reduce our dependency on imported energy resources, Governments have to choose from a list of alternatives, sometimes costly solutions. Which of the following should the (NATIONALITY) Government mainly focus on for the years to come? (MAX. 2 ANSWERS)

  • Promote advanced research for new energy technologies (hydrogen, clean coal, etc.) 41%
  • Regulate in order to reduce our dependence of oil 23%
  • Develop the use of nuclear energy 12%
  • Develop the use of solar power 48%
  • Develop the use of wind power 31%

The same for Britain:

* Promote advanced research for new energy technologies (hydrogen, clean coal, etc.) 36%
  • Regulate in order to reduce our dependence of oil 17%
  • Develop the use of nuclear energy 18%
  • Develop the use of solar power 43%
  • Develop the use of wind power 39%

The highest support for the nuclear saviour can be found in, no surprise here, Sweden (32%) and Finland (27%).

Other interesting tidbits, regarding the cojones factor:

Develop the use of nuclear energy by Sex -
  • Male: 16%
  • Female: 9%

  • by Age:
  • 15-24 11%
  • 25-39 11%
  • 40-54 12%
  • 55+ 15%

  • by Left-Righ scale
  • (1-4) Left 9%
  • (5-6) Centre 13%
  • (7-10) Right 19%

  • by Occupation
  • managers 18%
[nuclear energy and authoritarianism seem to go hand-in-hand...]


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 07:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Controversial among the locals, the NIMBY's. Not many people like getting a new wind mill park in the backyard. Nor do many people like getting a new nuclear reactor in their backyard. But people who already live next to a nuclear power plant usually support, or at least don't oppose, a new reactor at the current site.

Jerome posted a study showing that people who already lived next to wind farms did not oppose them, but it's often pretty hard to expand a windfarm just by plopping down more turbines as wind energy require quite large areas, or maybe already all the best wind resources at a certain location has already been exploited. Because of this, one might claim that popular opposition (at least local, the most important) is often bigger for wind than for nuclear.

Now, once again, I might be looking like the evil anti-renewable boogieman. I assure you do not oppose renewables. I think they are very important. I just happen to think that so is nuclear. I might write a diary about wave ("marine) power later just to prove my loyalty. ;)

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 08:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What one actually thinks of nuclear power is almost irrelevant here: we can depend on Blair and his friends to screw it up as badly as everything else they do. Given the choice between doing it right and doing it for maximum profit, which do you think they'll pick?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 08:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome posted a study showing that people who already lived next to wind farms did not oppose them

For the record, I posted it, Jérôme linked to it. The point wasn't that those living nearby don't oppose them and those living afar do - the point was that they oppose it even less. Wind NIMBYs are a minority, played up by the nuclear lobby (especially in Britain, where a former Thatcher aide and nuclear lobbyist headed the most important anti-wind campaigner NGO).

From that study:

...All respondents lived within a 20 km zone of the windfarms. The survey obtained results that are representative of people living within three zones (up to 5 km of a windfarm, 5-10 km and 10-20 km)...

People who lived in their homes before the windfarm was developed say that, in advance of the windfarm development, they thought that problems might be caused by its impact on the landscape (27%), traffic during construction (19%) and noise during construction (15%). By comparison, since the windfarm development, only 12% are concerned about the impact on the landscape,, 6% say that during construction there were problems with additional traffic, and 4% say there was noise or disturbance during construction.

...People living closest to the windfarms tend to be most positive about them...



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 09:45:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, I mixed up you and Jerome. Sorry about that.

Anyway, people living closest to nuclear power plants tend to be most positive about them, also.

A new public opinion survey in the United States shows that 83 percent of Americans living within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant favor nuclear energy, and 76 percent are willing to see a new reactor built near them

[...]

Electric company employees were excluded from the survey.

Full article.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:33:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, government ministers are attracted to grand schemes on which they can look back and say they have made their mark. A grand scheme to irradiate the UK seems good to Tony as each is a memorial to his folly... oops governance. A whole load of windmills everywhere is too duffuse and unsatisfying.

But even taking such folie de grandeur into account, he is excessively pro-nuclear. And I wonder why ? He's not old enough to be taken in by the old 60's razzle-dazzle of "energy too cheap to meter". So this is counter to his upbringing.

I rather think it's all of a piece with the rest of his Government, he want's quick fixes and always looks to industry to provide them. He never looks at the cost/benefit analysis because that's too long term, he lives in the ever-present now of his next headline in the Daily Mail. Nuclear is expedient today and that's all that matters to him.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 10:27:50 AM EST
well said!

i think he is completely amoral, and beholden.

if windmills were more profitable for the big boys behind the curtain, then phony tony would be grimacing with earnest glee about their superior virtues.

as shills go, he is a master, unfortunately.

follow the money, tone, and stay nice with the blackmailers!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 18th, 2006 at 11:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]