Kept in the dark. Fed... well, in the cause of coming to a view, not much of use.
I remain dubious about nuclear for a variety of reasons, articulated before, but mainly for the ongoing lack of guarantees for what happens 'down the road'. Space 1999 and all that.
But I do concede that, if on the other hand we are facing more immediate peril from the consequences of our energy addictions currently met by burning fossil fuels, with growing populations and recovering economies we are in between a rock an a hard place.
I am not really in the mood, or of a mind to go into all that throws up here, but it is complex, and I if that were not enough of a worry given the evident competencies of our current 'leaderships', the selfish, careerist, money-driven short-termism shown so far suggests that some things are often seen as just alternatives, rather than as part of a time-buying strategy on the road to stability.
However, or maybe because of this, this worries me...
Pro-nuclear Green candidate faces axe
And it worries me because of the politics. We are in an era of either/or, black and white, all or nothing. Nuance is not an option. Especially in the politico-media establishment.
My frustrations with the, in theory 'democratic' political process is now almost total. I have no faith that anything I do via my MP matters any more. And much of this is because too often I see him 'told' how to vote for party reasons rather than any hint of representing my views, or what he sees as the good of the county and country he represents.
Now I can see how the views of these individuals can clash with that of the party, and indeed the manifesto it needs to stand behind in campaigning, but there strikes me as something worrying about that last phrase: “We will be taking appropriate measures.”
Showing posts with label ENERGY POLICY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENERGY POLICY. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Friday, November 07, 2008
Grid and bear it
In amongst a lot of rather ill-defined, news hype and spin of late, this caught my attention:
Yes we can... build the smart grid
A sober (well, a little starry-eyed stuff creeping in) look at what can, and may not be possible to do.
Energy independence is an ideal, and one I support wholeheartedly, so long as the enviROI works out.
Let's see what actually happens. Here's hoping it works out well.
Telegraph - Barack Obama faces a daunting task on the environment
Yes we can... build the smart grid
A sober (well, a little starry-eyed stuff creeping in) look at what can, and may not be possible to do.
Energy independence is an ideal, and one I support wholeheartedly, so long as the enviROI works out.
Let's see what actually happens. Here's hoping it works out well.
Telegraph - Barack Obama faces a daunting task on the environment
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
A small reminder
I thought this letter in the Indy today was well articulated:
Energy policy about to hit the iceberg
Your correspondents ("Bringing down the cost of solar panels", 4 September) are not just re-arranging the Titanic's deckchairs, they are busily hammering holes in her hull. Yes, you can make anything appear viable by offering subsidies, but artificial "feed-in" tariffs, renewables obligation certificates and support for biofuel producers merely transfer the economic costs to the taxpayer and the environmental costs to the planet.
Most renewables, particularly micro-generation, do not just leave users out of pocket; in many cases their production and distribution absorb more energy and emit more carbon than the units will ever pay back. By contrast, turning down the central heating or putting out some lights costs nothing and saves money on the next bill, not in 160 years.
We must recognise that reducing our energy consumption is essential, because all forms of fuel are running out, because we are increasingly dependent on foreign regimes for our supplies and because most energy use causes CO2 emissions. We must have an energy policy which includes sustainable sources such as underground coal gasification, geothermal energy and community-based combined heat and power. Unlike most renewables, these offer energy 365 days a year. Wind and solar have a place when they can be installed on an industrial scale at the point of use, but those who believe they will allow us to continue our squanderous lifestyle while saving the planet are recklessly deluded.
Energy policy about to hit the iceberg
Your correspondents ("Bringing down the cost of solar panels", 4 September) are not just re-arranging the Titanic's deckchairs, they are busily hammering holes in her hull. Yes, you can make anything appear viable by offering subsidies, but artificial "feed-in" tariffs, renewables obligation certificates and support for biofuel producers merely transfer the economic costs to the taxpayer and the environmental costs to the planet.
Most renewables, particularly micro-generation, do not just leave users out of pocket; in many cases their production and distribution absorb more energy and emit more carbon than the units will ever pay back. By contrast, turning down the central heating or putting out some lights costs nothing and saves money on the next bill, not in 160 years.
We must recognise that reducing our energy consumption is essential, because all forms of fuel are running out, because we are increasingly dependent on foreign regimes for our supplies and because most energy use causes CO2 emissions. We must have an energy policy which includes sustainable sources such as underground coal gasification, geothermal energy and community-based combined heat and power. Unlike most renewables, these offer energy 365 days a year. Wind and solar have a place when they can be installed on an industrial scale at the point of use, but those who believe they will allow us to continue our squanderous lifestyle while saving the planet are recklessly deluded.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Numbers games
I am on various forums. One threw up this link on nuclear: Warning over nuclear power sites
Before I knew it I was mouthing off...
'Could'. 'Significantly'?
I started life as a Civil Engineer. The unofficial motto was 'Civ. Eng's do for a shilling what any other idiot can do for a pound'.
I then went into advertising, mostly in Asia. The rule there was 'He who goes over approved estimate may dream fondly of getting any more out of client'.
Two different careers. One common theme. Budgeting ... and, without wishing to end up like the JLF in 'Life of Brian', time management (still boiled down to money).
Now, I never went near money in either. I made... make things. But at every stage of my career I have understood the need, and value of accurate estimates. Working with those who drew 'em up.
There were unforeseeables, inevitably. And that's why we had smart cookies figuring out the contingencies to negotiate the contracts, based on accurate parameters.
What the heck has happened?
From Wembley to the 2012 Olympics, it seems you pluck a number out the sky, halve it to win the contract, and then quadruple it so the lawyer fees look only slightly less in comparison.
When it comes to energy, especially nuclear and renewables, I am at a complete loss. With politics and subsidies and targets and agendas muddying and already murky mix.
Black is white. Green is red. Up is down.
As a consumer I just want things quick, cheap, fast and reliable. If I am so minded, I might now throw some ethics in the mix. Those factors are all a juggle. A unit of 'leccy is not very sexy, so I could care less how it arrives or from whom.
Hence, in opting for my supply, I need to know how much, for how long, how often and how well. With some sense on carbon consequences if I feel in the mood to trade some gr££n for some green. Weighing all the options.
It would be nice to have clear, simple charts showing what is front loaded or back loaded, what is more secure because of investment, or what goes into payback and when for the same reason. So I can asses £/kW over a defined set of periods. And if there is a dirty great big plummet (in supply) or soar (in cost) about when my kids are plugging in my blanket because the systems are going off line (decommissioning or exploding gearboxes), I want that in there too. Because it's not fair on them and dumb for me not to be aware.
Now, why is getting that so hard? Or are the massed voices of lobbyists and activists just drowning out any sane long term information (which just must be out there), at least as far as any media I read seems capable of sharing.
It has come to something that I consider our government at best incompetent (what Minister on 6-month rotation could understand the issues) if not corrupt (what MP is going to do what's right today but get 'em bounced tomorrow?), and our media incapable (are there any qualified science reporters any more?) if not venal (ratings trump all), and hence not to be trusted in helping the public understand what it is facing and arrive at a consensus that it will support to drive through what is best for now... and the future.
Before I knew it I was mouthing off...
'Could'. 'Significantly'?
I started life as a Civil Engineer. The unofficial motto was 'Civ. Eng's do for a shilling what any other idiot can do for a pound'.
I then went into advertising, mostly in Asia. The rule there was 'He who goes over approved estimate may dream fondly of getting any more out of client'.
Two different careers. One common theme. Budgeting ... and, without wishing to end up like the JLF in 'Life of Brian', time management (still boiled down to money).
Now, I never went near money in either. I made... make things. But at every stage of my career I have understood the need, and value of accurate estimates. Working with those who drew 'em up.
There were unforeseeables, inevitably. And that's why we had smart cookies figuring out the contingencies to negotiate the contracts, based on accurate parameters.
What the heck has happened?
From Wembley to the 2012 Olympics, it seems you pluck a number out the sky, halve it to win the contract, and then quadruple it so the lawyer fees look only slightly less in comparison.
When it comes to energy, especially nuclear and renewables, I am at a complete loss. With politics and subsidies and targets and agendas muddying and already murky mix.
Black is white. Green is red. Up is down.
As a consumer I just want things quick, cheap, fast and reliable. If I am so minded, I might now throw some ethics in the mix. Those factors are all a juggle. A unit of 'leccy is not very sexy, so I could care less how it arrives or from whom.
Hence, in opting for my supply, I need to know how much, for how long, how often and how well. With some sense on carbon consequences if I feel in the mood to trade some gr££n for some green. Weighing all the options.
It would be nice to have clear, simple charts showing what is front loaded or back loaded, what is more secure because of investment, or what goes into payback and when for the same reason. So I can asses £/kW over a defined set of periods. And if there is a dirty great big plummet (in supply) or soar (in cost) about when my kids are plugging in my blanket because the systems are going off line (decommissioning or exploding gearboxes), I want that in there too. Because it's not fair on them and dumb for me not to be aware.
Now, why is getting that so hard? Or are the massed voices of lobbyists and activists just drowning out any sane long term information (which just must be out there), at least as far as any media I read seems capable of sharing.
It has come to something that I consider our government at best incompetent (what Minister on 6-month rotation could understand the issues) if not corrupt (what MP is going to do what's right today but get 'em bounced tomorrow?), and our media incapable (are there any qualified science reporters any more?) if not venal (ratings trump all), and hence not to be trusted in helping the public understand what it is facing and arrive at a consensus that it will support to drive through what is best for now... and the future.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Silly Question
Newsnight - Energy Policy
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)