A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
2 comments:
Dave,
Figures from Government statisticians support Greenpeace's claim that half the UK's Energy needs are for heat (see below)
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40156.pdf
Greenpeace's more specific figures on household use look sensible too. e.g. in my house we've used 1 800 kWh of electricity over the last year but 11 700 kWh of gas (central heating and hot water). As nuclear contributes 20% of the UK's electricity at the moment, that means that nuclear supplies 2.7% of my house's energy needs. Nuclear can't solve our energy requirements, though it might be one small tool in a rather large toolbox.
To add to your question, another question would how we get people to insulate their houses properly, especially all those with un-insulated cavity walls.....
Lawrence
I have yet to find the time to watch the piece, but quality input and comments already gentlemen, thank you.
I'm big on anything that has solutions as opposed to waffle, and even more if it is in ways the average pea-brain (ie: me) can grasp and engage with (ie: not the latest COI ad for WestEalingCO2).
As a devotee of, and waver towards the cautionary tale that was/is Space 1999, in answer ot Lawerence's question I rather fear not, especially as population and economic expectations do not seem to be in the frame of considerations. And especially as I deem a few 'green' solutions to have as yet unproven enviROIs, and hence may do more damage than good.
Not the best options, really. Die of ignorance. Die of greed. Die being right.
Which is why I get so twitchy when the likes on Newsnight decide that bottles of Evian are the big issue.
Insulation is a massive aspect, yet how much in all these latest ads do we have the issues spelled out, or the solutions facilitated?
And Lawrence is so right to mention cavities as such (small) talk as I have heard on the issue is all around new builds. Other than my office, the rest of this place is 2' thick solid stone. What the heck should... can I do? Reclad internally in Kingspan? And can I afford it? And will I get slaughtered in a HIPS survey for having renovated a derelict, only to end up funding some subsidised young essential worker's insurance policy in their flood plain des res? I'm guessing bailing out and rebuilding every five years doesn't figure in the box-ticking.
Post a Comment