I am trying to get to grips with the fallout (there may be a few unintentional nuclear-related puns here, so bear with me) from the PM's Energy Speech, which for various reasons pretty much got turned into 'How I Learned To Love The Atom'. Or, in the case of a few who took a pre-emptive opposing view, not.
So my time with the online versions of the major media was pretty extensive today. And frankly, it has done my head in.
What was interesting was how balanced they all were, with editorial, commentary and public opinion within organs of left and right, covering the full political spectrum, all pretty much disagreeing with each other internally, as much as with each other.
I actually found the 'letters to the editor' the most informative and useful, possibly becuase these were from folk who were not constrained by party lines, rigid dogma, commercial pressure or the need to stir up a rating or two.
But you know what? I'm still none the wiser.
And worse, my trust level is going down... further. All of a sudden I'm being sprung with stuff on little or no deadline, and it makes me suspicious: 'We've run out: this is the only way. Agree to it NOW!'. Prices have doubled and can only rise... but, conveniently, would you like to lock into the current rate for ten years?'. 'Donate to us or we'll die'. 'Give voice to our opinion or we'll throw our toys out of the pram, and then come and throw yours out to if you're not with us'.
As far as I can make out, the big problem is global warming. And this, at best guess, is not being helped to the greatest degree by greenhouse gasses. So we need to get these out of the atmosphere, whilst reducing (to zero?) any more going back up form our activities.
No one is going near the whole expanding, increasingly affluent (and hence not too likely too be tilling their fields for a lifetime with one visit a decade to the big city) global population.
So there are more of us, wanting more stuff (which takes energy to make) and needing more energy to run it all once we've got it.
So it's back to the numbers. What will it cost me financially, and the planet environmentally to a) survive (eat, drink, house, heat, etc) and b) consume (travel, entertain, etc)?
I can then get to what I'm am prepared to pay (money, inconvenience, etc) and what costs I am prepared to bear (reduced travel, less 'stuff', blemished potatoes, etc).
But I don't feel close to those numbers. Look at the current nuclear debate. Just as one small example, it is admitted that while a nuclear power station does not produce greenhouse gasses (though I bet there's steam, which didn't I read was now a greenhouse gas?), its construction, operation and disposal has a 'carbon consequence'. Not to mention the glowy thingies that are left behind (anyone recall Space 1999? I personally blame The Simpsons for making this stuff seem harmless).
However, I then see wind farms being deemed carbon neutral. Are they? It seems an omission on par with electric cars being called 'non-polluting'. There has to be a carbon consequence to making them, erecting them, running them and dismantling them at end of life, as with anything. It may be less operationally than nuclear, but it sure is not zero. And once the subsidy factor has been stripped away, how to they match up in terms of cost-effectiveness?
Plus if you really want to get complex you can go on to break out the environmental costs per kWhr as well, surely?
How is it so hard to derive a clear cost for the 'product' amortised over its life? Try this for a nuke and a wind farm:
Cost to build / Carbon consequence to build
Cost to operate / Carbon consequence to operate
Cost to decommission/ Carbon consequence to decommission
But that against what they crank out and... hence we get a £/KWh and CC/KWh for each.
I am prepared to bet the wind farm will win in spades on all three (maybe close on building)
But....
We have to also look at what 'we' are expected to suck out of these things. No point going a route that can't deliver.
That... is a whole new ball of wax.
No comments:
Post a Comment