Bearing in mind that the non productive gov't payroll exceeds the number in private employment, those that would bear the brunt of the cost of nuclear should be consulted separately to the electorate. Waiting a few years would give time for the new, safer methods already under development to mature and enter the list for consideration. It would also allow the UK to show whether its fraudulent fiat currency is sufficiently under control to actual be able to afford nuclear.
CCNet - 14 March 2011 The Climate Policy Network
After Tsunami Disaster, Expect Nuclear Delays & Global Run On Cheap Fossil Fuels
Forget wind. Forget solar. Forget green energy. Japan’s nuclear disaster will only intensify the global race for cheap fossil fuels while most future energy R&D will go into nuclear safety. –Benny Peiser, 14 March 2011
Nuclear power should have a part to play in cutting carbon emissions. But safety fears could kill its revival – at least in the west. Although support for new nuclear construction has been creeping up in the US and Europe, it remains brittle. Even one serious accident could shatter it. –Financial Times, 14 March 2011
Germany’s federal government intends to check the operating time of each of the 17 German nuclear power plants. The question of coal energy is newly emerging. –Die Welt, 14 March 2011
1) Japan Syndrome: Between Climate Hysteria And Nuclear Decarbonisation - Reuters, 14 March 2011
Any potential switch away from nuclear power is likely to favour gas-fired generation, the most practical low carbon-emission alternative. -- David Musiker
2) After Tsunami, Expect Nuclear Delays & Global Run On Cheap Fossil Fuels - The Washington Post, 13 March 2011
Cost remains the biggest obstacle for any revival of nuclear energy. Momentum for a nuclear comeback also has been slowed because other energy sources remain less expensive. Natural gas is cheap, especially with the expansion of supplies from shale rock, and there's been no legislative action to tax carbon emissions. -- Jia Lynn Yang
3) Japan's crisis may have already derailed 'nuclear renaissance' - Los Angeles Times, 14 March 2011
4) Japan Earthquake Holds Lessons and Warnings - Science Insider, 11 March 2011
5) Bill Clinton: Drilling Delays 'Ridiculous' - Politico, 11 March 2011
Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference. -- Darren Goode
6) Drill more to ease energy crisis, U.S. voters say - The Hill, 13 March 2011
Thanks Dr Peiser GWPF
Lawrence Solomon, featured blogger in Canada's Financial Post shares my contempt for so-called green energy that in the UK at least has in every case proved to be a counterproductive boondoggle of benefit only to the wealthy and banks and hugely costly to society in general and individuals and business in particular. Biofuels kill people and forests, wind kills birds and solar at its kindergarten stage is a counterproductive waste of farmland. Lawrence's recent offerings relevant to energy include:
Ontario’s unemployment rate could reach 10% The Ontario government has one of the world’s most aggressive green job-creating program, with plans underway to create 50,000 new green jobs in the province. Based on the latest evidence from another aggressive green-job creating jurisdiction – the United Kingdom, where every green job created leads to the loss of 3.7 jobs elsewhere in the economy — if Ontario meets its green job target, a potential 185,000 jobs could be lost. Green jobs thus threaten to be a potential major driver of provincial unemployment.
Smart is dumb Power companies around the world are planning to spend trillions of dollars building smart grids — next-generation marvels likened to the transcontinental railroad and the Internet because they are seen as revolutionizing society. It won’t happen. The smart grid is nothing more than a politically driven fantasy that has no economic rationale other than to support politically favoured technologies that themselves have no economic rationale other than to save the world from global warming. And on global warming the public in most developed countries, public opinion polls show, has already spoken: Global warming is a non-problem.
Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that."
“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”
Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.
McGuinty’s reality .We’ve got to contend with reality,” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty told the provincial legislature last fall, in explaining that Ontarians need smart electricity meters to adapt to a changed “world where we are building a new reliable, clean, modern electricity system.” With smart meters, his Energy Minister chimed in, the government was providing “the opportunity for Ontarians to be able to shift their usage from peak usage.”
Here’s the reality. Ontario doesn’t need Mr. McGuinty’s new electricity system, which will be immensely less reliable and immensely more costly than the current system. The only one who needs the system is Mr. McGuinty himself, to make good his boast of being the world’s first leader to get his jurisdiction entirely off coal.
Master Resource has extensive coverage of spy meters found here.
Also from the same source, questions that should be put to Cameron and Huhne before letting them damage the country further:
Five Questions for DOE Secretary Chu (so what has DOE R&D done for you lately?) by Glenn Schleede
“If the guiding agency is less knowledgeable than the system it is trying to guide—and even worse, if its actions necessarily result in further undesired consequences in the working of that system—then what is going on is not planning at all but, rather, blind interference by some agents with the plans of others.” - Don Lavoie, National Economic Planning: What is Left? (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1985), p. 95.
Upon reading the latest letter from the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Stephen Chu, five questions came to mind. Perhaps he, a staffer, or anyone else can provide answers to see just how justified this part of DOE’s mission is during a time of fiscal challenge.
#1: Can Secretary Chu spell C-E-N-T-R-A-L P-L-A-N-N-I-N-G ?
#2: If there is “…deep energy expertise within the Department and our national laboratories…” how does one explain the minimal results from the approximately $150 billion (2009$) that has been poured into “energy R&D” (not counting money spent in basic sciences) by DOE and its predecessors?
#3: Has an energy technology promoted by DOE ever made it into unsubsidized commercial application? (Please list)
#4: Are the two key assumptions underlying DOE’s energy RD&D efforts — i.e., (i) more spending WILL overcome technology hurdles, and (ii) economies of scale WILL inherently bring down the price so that the technology will be competitive in commercial markets — really justified, recognizing the failure of these assumptions for every “winning” energy technology selected by the federal government during the past 45 years?
#5: Starting with 1973, how many different energy technologies have been picked as “winners” by federal officials (Administrations and/or Congress), only to have the technology fall by the wayside because of it proved to be (a) higher in cost, (b) lower in value, (c) technically impractical and/or (d) more environmentally unacceptable than its advocates claimed? (Please list.)