Posted on May 30th, 2011 No comments
This chart shows why George Monbiot, Mark Lynas and Stephen Tinsdale have all plumped for the wrong choice – new Nuclear Power cannot deliver more electricity or reduce carbon dioxide emissions for us at the time when we need it most – the next few years :-
0. Massive energy conservation drives – for demand management – are clearly essential, given the reduction in UK generation.
1. It is impossible to increase new Nuclear Power capacity in less than ten years, but total UK generation is falling now, so now and in the next few years is the timeframe in which to add capacity. We cannot go on relying on Nuclear Power imports from France – especially given the rate of power outages there.
2. The fastest growing generation sources over the next few years will be Wind Power, Solar Power and Renewable Gas – if we set the right policies at the government and regulator levels.Big Number, Carbon Capture, Coal Hell, Design Matters, Direction of Travel, Emissions Impossible, Energy Change, Energy Insecurity, Energy Revival, Fossilised Fuels, Green Power, Growth Paradigm, Low Carbon Life, Methane Management, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Optimistic Generation, Peak Emissions, Policy Warfare, Realistic Models, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Gas, Renewable Resource, Resource Wards, Technological Fallacy, Technological Sideshow, The Power of Intention, Unnatural Gas, Wind of Fortune Atomic Energy, Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, coal, Coal Power, George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Nuclear, Nuclear Disempowerment, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Renewable Gas, shale gas, Stephen Tinsdale
Posted on September 29th, 2010 No comments
I don’t know about you, but I’m missing David Miliband from the political fish-eat-fish top table already.
If he were to ask me, which he won’t, but anyway, if he did, I would recommend that he starts reading up about Energy production and supply, over the next 18 months or so before he gets invited, acceptingly, back into the Shadow Cabinet of the UK Government.
If he were to spend his time on the train between South Shields and Westminster looking into energy security matters, into crustal petrogeology, the Middle East oil fields, Wind Power, solar and marine options, he could make a strong comeback into the limelight – as opposed to the “lemon” light he’s been cast into, thrust into, so far.
If he becomes acquainted with the ways and wiles of engineering and fossil fuels over the next few years, the viability of Renewable Energy solutions, the transport explosion phenomenon and how to control it, then he will be able to offer solid assistance to his younger brother Teddy – who appears to be mistakenly sold on the idea of new nuclear power.
And if Ed Miliband were to ask, (again, which he won’t), I’d say – atomic energy cannot save us; carbon capture technology cannot save us; algae biodiesel can only trickle, even Frankenstein GM algae biodiesel; Peak Oil is almost definitely here; efficiency of use alone cannot save us. We have to go right out for a non-combustion, Renewable Energy future.Big Picture, British Sea Power, Carbon Capture, Carbon Rationing, Climate Change, Divide & Rule, Energy Change, Energy Revival, Fossilised Fuels, Genetic Muddyfixation, Geogingerneering, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Low Carbon Life, Major Shift, Media, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Oil Change, Peace not War, Peak Energy, Political Nightmare, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Social Change, Stirring Stuff, Technological Sideshow, Unsolicited Advice & Guidance, Wind of Fortune Algae Biodiesel, Atomic Energy, Atomic Power, British Sea Power, Carbon Capture, David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Edward Miliband, Energy, Geoengineering, Geothermal, marine power, Middle East, Miliband, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, offshore wind, onshore wind, peace in our time, Renewable Energy, Solar power, Sustainable Energy, Teddy Miliband, Tidal Power, Wave Power, Wind Farms, Wind Power, World Peace
Posted on September 8th, 2010 No comments
An e-mail trail with a certain amount of political content…
from: Kate Shepherd
date: Tue, Aug 10, 2010
subject: Climate Week
It was lovely to speak with you today about Climate Week and I’d be grateful if you could pass on the information to the rest of your team.
Climate Week, 21st – 27th March 2011, is a new national occasion on climate change, backed by the Prime Minister, Al Gore and Kofi Annan. During Climate Week, thousands of events will be run by organisations from every part of society to highlight the positive steps being taken to help prevent climate change.
I have attached a document for further information, the document includes a list of supporters of Climate Week, which range from every part of society: from the Chief Fire Officers Association to the Women’s Institute, the Girl Guiding UK to several Regional Development Agencies.Advertise Freely, Bait & Switch, Be Prepared, Big Picture, British Sea Power, Burning Money, Carbon Capture, Climate Change, Coal Hell, Corporate Pressure, Energy Revival, Environmental Howzat, Financiers of the Apocalypse, Fossilised Fuels, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Incalculable Disaster, Low Carbon Life, Marine Gas, Media, Meltdown, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Peak Energy, Peak Oil, Petrolheads, Political Nightmare, Protest & Survive, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Resource Curse, Solar Sunrise, Tarred Sands, Unconventional Foul, Unnatural Gas, Wind of Fortune Al Gore, Atomic Energy, Atomic Power, Churchill, Climate Camp, David Cameron, EdF, Electricite de France, Firemen, Fossil Fuels, France, Germany, Girl Guides, Gordon Brown, Kevin Steele, Kofi Annan, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Oil Bank of Scotland, Oyal Bank of Scotland, RBS, Royal Bank of Scotland, Vincent de Rivaz, Winnie, Winston Churchill, Womens Institute
Posted on July 4th, 2010 No comments
Nuclear Power is on the rocks – hot radioactive rocks.
There have been a string of accidents, fires and outages in the last couple of years, probably due to cost-cutting and lack of investment in new equipment.
Nuclear Power stations are ageing. Many of them are due to be completely shut down by 2020. But some of them might not survive that long, judging by the catalogue of incidents racking up.
Does this kind of event make the national or international news ? Sometimes. Nobody wants to be sensationalist about it. It doesn’t get much commentary or opinion following.
Here’s only the very latest happening :-
“Fire breaks out at nuclear power station : Sunday, 4 July 2010 : An overnight fire at the Sizewell B nuclear power plant near Leiston on the Suffolk coast was brought under control by eight fire crews after more than six hours. The blaze, in a building housing a charcoal absorber which filters gases, was the second incident this year. In March, 50 firefighters spent almost seven hours tackling a similar blaze which resulted in the plant being closed. Jim Crawford, the station director, said the latest fire had posed no danger to the public.”
And that’s it – the entire report. It’s quite astonishing that there is no further investigation, exploration or explanation.
As one of the commenters, Jason Brown wrote “And The “Independent” devotes precisely TWO paragraphs to this story? Ah, hallo? Chernobyl anyone?”
Posted on June 28th, 2010 No comments
Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube
I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?
Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.
Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.
First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.
The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).
If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.
Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
28 June 2010
I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.
I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.Behaviour Changeling, British Sea Power, Carbon Army, Carbon Capture, Carbon Commodities, China Syndrome, Climate Change, Energy Revival, Geogingerneering, Global Warming, Growth Paradigm, Health Impacts, Low Carbon Life, Media, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Pet Peeves, Political Nightmare, Public Relations, Regulatory Ultimatum, Renewable Resource, Science Rules, Social Change, Solar Sunrise, Voluntary Behaviour Change, Vote Loser, Wind of Fortune Act on CO2, ActOnCO2, Anglican, Atomic Energy, Atomic Power, BP, business lobby, C of E, Campaign against Climate Change, Capitalism, Carbon Capture and Storage, Carbon Energy, CCS, CEO, Christopher Booker, Church Commissioners, Church of England, cigarette, Climate Change Act, Climate Forum, Climate Safety, Climate Union, ClimateSafety, coal, CofE, Commissioners, Concentrated Solar Power, Corporate Europe Observatory, denial, denier, Domestic Energy Consumption, economic recovery, economics, Economy, electricity, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Europe, European Union, Fair Pensions, FairPensions, Fossil Fuel Energy, Fossil Fuels, Gas, Gasoline, government, green employment, Green Energy, green jobs, green stimulus, Hydropower, James Delingpole, lobbying, Low Carbon, Low Carbon Transition, Make Poverty History, MakePovertyHistory, Marine Energy, Natural Gas, Neoliberalism, Nigel Lawson, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Oil, opinion poll, pensions, Petrol, Petroleum, Photovoltaic, policy, political will, public mandate, public opinion, Regulation, Renewable, Renewable Energy, sceptic, Shareholders, Shares, skeptic, Society, Solar power, Steve McIntyre, Stocks and Shares, Sustainable, Sustainable Energy, Tidal Power, tobacco, transport, UK, UK Government, United Kingdom, vote, voting, Wave Power, Wind Energy, Wind Power
Posted on March 5th, 2010 1 comment
If you can imagine the engine for new, renewable and sustainable Energy systems as a train which should by now be thundering down the tracks, get this : it left the depot only to get stuck in the sidings.
Enough of the locomotive metaphors, already. On to the analysis. Here’s an excerpt from Catherine Mitchell’s fine book “The Political Economy of Sustainable Energy” (2008, 2010) :-Big Picture, British Sea Power, Carbon Capture, Climate Change, Cost Effective, Energy Revival, Nuclear Nuisance, Nuclear Shambles, Pet Peeves, Political Nightmare, Regulatory Ultimatum, Social Change, Technological Sideshow, Vote Loser, Wind of Fortune Atomic Energy, Atomic Power, Climate Change, Energy infrastructure, Energy Investment, Energy systems, Global Warming, New Nuclear, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Energy
Posted on February 22nd, 2010 No comments
The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has already made up its mind about a new fleet of Nuclear Power plants. However, they had the good grace to publish an open online consultation on the overall National Policy Statements, to which I have just contributed. It’s not a real democratic, deliberative process, but I still contributed, because I believe we do need to make use of the channels opened for us to express ourselves, even if few people with decision-making authority pay attention to our points of view and analysis.
Please note : if you want to add your halfpennyworth you have until the close of business today to do so, 22 February 2010.
Posted on December 28th, 2009 4 comments
Image Credit : NowPublic
I still don’t know what all the fuss is about Nuclear Power, when the BioMethane from all the toilets, farm slurry, hospital and food waste in the country could trounce the amount of power available from atoms by 2020.
Without all that nasty radioactive leftover, massive expensive building projects, social tension, election nightmare and increasing security issues.
Posted on November 12th, 2009 5 comments
“Sustainable Development” is a phrase with two distinct meanings.
When people trained in Economics think about what “Sustainable Development” means, they normally assume that Nature’s continuing bounty will sustain our development path. That the pyramid of wealth, the wealth accrual machine and monetary incentives will bring more and more people and material resources into optimal production, and there will be no end to the development of the enrichment of all peoples and the quality of their habitat. Growth is good, for it brings prosperity to all, health, wealth, education, freedom from want and a top-notch built environment.
Posted on November 9th, 2009 1 comment
Ed Miliband is today assuring us that New Nuclear Power will be safe, and that we will all have a say in the planning process – so tantalising us with the idea that we will be able to influence the outcome.
I don’t believe either of these things.
Nuclear Power is inherently dangerous, operationally unreliable, dirty, wasteful, expensive and any public money used to support it in any way will prevent us from pursuing truly sustainable Energy.
New Nuclear won’t work without Government subsidy, either for the construction of the plants themselves, or guaranteed customer pricing, or the insurance to cover the failure of projects to complete (or radioactive accident). The Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change can expect to find any New Nuclear direct public funding, price fixing, subsidy or tax breaks in court.
No, it won’t be me personally taking the Government to court.
Nuclear Power is a dinosaur technology, and judging by the number of countries that have signed up for new fleets of reactors, the Uranium fuel to run the plants being planned will be exhausted within the lifetime of the plants. With supplies of fuel running out, early decommissioning means the plants will never pay back on the investment.
Sounds like a high risk strategy to me, even before looking at the risks of radioactive explosions.
Posted on November 6th, 2009 No comments
We told you all along : New Nuclear will be expensive, and the privatised Energy suppliers will not be interested in financing them on their own. Too big a risk.
All that capital tied up in projects that could roll on for years and years and years with no guarantee of a decent generation capacity at the end.
Building infrastructure with no assurances of a return on investment – well, in this Economic climate, it’s not going to happen. New Nuclear will need public sector finance – yet another bailout.
Posted on October 28th, 2009 1 comment
Despite the continuing list of problems with existing Nuclear Power plants, a committed group of highly-financed representatives from mining and construction companies carry on plugging away with the public relations for a new global fleet of Atomic Energy.
The crisp, tinted, glossy promotion packs from the Nuclear industry lobbyists pop up at every conference, meeting and ministerial intray, and certain public persons continue to preach the glow-in-the-dark gospel, glossing over the cracked history of this nightmare Energy industry to date.
The diagrams depicting the “next generation” technologies are always full four-colour, precise, attractive. The propagandists always well-dressed, well-remunerated and clean-shaven.
Posted on October 24th, 2009 No comments
The rumour mill about the propsects for new Nuclear Power is quite active, a kind of underground semaphore.
About a year ago, the idea that the United Kingdom would be burdened with eleven new Nuclear Power stations entered the mill and popped out all over the shop, being greeted with ridicule, dismissiveness, anger and despair.
When the Energy Supply companies started going into “free capital” meltdown over new investments, owing to issues concerning insurance and the general Economy, there was concern that they wouldn’t come along with the new Nuclear plan.
The Government kept pumping out the information that we should have at least four new Nuclear Power stations. How critical this project was ! How bright and shiny new Nuclear would be ! The unwritten back room understanding that any new Nuclear Power plant could expect State support in one form or another. However, the public statements were that there would be no Public Money for new Nuclear build.
Posted on September 27th, 2009 No comments
There’s the real world. And then there’s “Daily Telegraph world”, a fantasy mindscape, it seems to me.
In yet another piece that seems to be written for the sole purpose of attacking wind power, massaged in under the banner of standing up for the fuel poor :-
is this outstanding piece of reporting about Atomic Energy in the United Kingdom :-
“Nuclear, by contrast, is unsubsidised.”