Friday, 19 September 2008

Why we need nuclear and coal

Yes, we as a party say that we need new nuclear stationsand new coal fired power stations. Not because we specifically like them but because we'll need them: renewables simply won't fill the energy gap.

There are those of course who disagree, like this piece in The Guardian today.

The report models current UK energy demands across all sectors of the economy and assesses the potential for different renewable sources to replace fossil fuel and nuclear generation. This isn't wishful thinking; we've carefully modelled exactly where and when we use energy, and how we could replace current generation with renewables. The scenario uses a broad spread of different sources – onshore and offshore wind, solar, small-scale hydro and tidal power. It's true that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. But we've mapped the UK for renewable energy potential and found that by distributing the generation around the country, using storage and managing our energy use intelligently we can even out the ups and downs in supply and demand.

Energy saving is crucial. The scenario requires us to reduce our
energy use by almost half.

So what he's actually saying is that renewables won't in fact provide the energy we need or want, they'll only provide half of it. And this is seriously touted as a reason why we won't need nuclear and coal?

As is pointed out in the comments, what's really being said is this:

"A range of tariffs will enable

consumers to choose between high cost uninterruptible

supplies and discounted rates where energy

companies can control appliance use to balance


No s*** Alex? " control appliance use "

I'll summarise the plan for those that don't want to read the report: they want us to halve energy use - not just leccy, all energy use, they then want us to accept brown-outs, grey-outs and blackouts as routine.

So there you have it. Even those promoting renewables only are saying that in order to prevent blackouts we'll need to have nuclear and coal. That pretty much ends the argument really, doesn't it?

No comments: