Yay, the government has announced 8 new sites for nuclear power stations, all to be built without subsidies, apparently.
What astonished me recently was discovering how basic the principles behind nuclear power are. Coal and gas power stations heat water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity. Nuclear power stations, er, heat water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity. So much for new technology.
Given that no new nuclear power station has been completed in decades due to myriad problems and that no new nuclear power station has been built - or is being built - without subsidies and that the minor issue of the growing waste stockpile which no one can do anything with for 500,000 years and that work to develop nuclear fusion - a sustainable source of power - is proceeding apace - oh, and given that a nuclear power station in Japan nearly melted down with disastrous consequences, forcing the government of Japan to set out an exclusion zone stretching tens of kilometres from the stricken nuclear plant, what on earth are Lib Dems doing promoting this outdated, inefficient and no less carbon-costly source of power - once you factor in build costs, massive decommissioning and waste storage costs, which can't simply be ignored?
As gas prices rocket and petrol becomes dearer than platinum, we surely need the government to focus minds on future technology now, rather than an expensive stopgap based on 70 year old principles - and we surely need Lib Dems to be stating this case clearly and unequivocally, lest senseless Tories have their hands clasped too tightly over their ears to hear the truth.
Would you rather have Chris Huhne parroting failed Labour government policy or standing up firmly for Lib Dem principles of investment and innovation for the long term future, regardless of the cost to coalition unity? Tough choice, huh?
Showing posts with label CHRIS HUHNE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHRIS HUHNE. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
'GOVERNMENT UNPOPULAR' SHOCK - A NATION YAWNS
According to the newspapers the LDs' poll rating is slipping as more people say they do not know what we stand for any more. Well, if you've been an activist for a few years you'll know that this is a standard refrain and its not really anything to worry about.
Well, we're part of a government which is making bigger cuts to the public sector that any since the 1930s. We're in bed with our one time mortal enemies (some of us are still keeping a revolver under the pillow...) and we seem to be jettisoning our principles. Its therefore hardly surprising that we're not exactly racing in the polls.
There is no question that the coalition has been a shock for our traditional supporters - including me - but there is also no doubt that by signing up to this agreement the Lib Dems are actually achieving stuff, like a referendum on voting reform, which we have been going on about for decades. We have a commitment to fixed term parliaments, a promised reform of party funding, a commitment to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament and a long delayed - by Labour - reform of the House of Lords. We campaigned on all these issues at the election and they are now being introduced. Tell me, where's the beef?
We have got the tax threshold raised, as we promised at the election. We have a commitment to restore the link between pensions and earnings, which the Labour Party failed to do for 13 years. We have a commitment to greater freedoms for teachers and health workers to do their jobs, fair compensation for Equitable Life pensioners.
We have Vince Cable as Business Secretary, Chris Huhne as Energy Secretary, Norman Baker responsible for Transport. People who know what they are doing - LD people - are in the right jobs. We must give them time to effect real change.
The 'but' is that they are part of a coalition, which requires compromise. I don't suppose that Chris Huhne ever imagined that he would be declaring his support for nuclear power in Parliament but he is a pragmatist and he knows that if he wants to deliver LD changes to our energy policy he must compromise. That's the real world of politics which we must get used to.
The key for us is that in five years' time, assuming that the date for the next election is honoured, we will be able to enter an election telling voters that Lib Dems have been in government, we have demonstrated our ability to work with other parties, we have demonstrated that we can actually get things done and that for the first time in almost a century a Lib Dem vote can be clearly, unequivocally demonstrated to be anything but a wasted vote.
Courage, mes braves. Its a long road, a rocky one but the destination might just be worth it.
Well, we're part of a government which is making bigger cuts to the public sector that any since the 1930s. We're in bed with our one time mortal enemies (some of us are still keeping a revolver under the pillow...) and we seem to be jettisoning our principles. Its therefore hardly surprising that we're not exactly racing in the polls.
There is no question that the coalition has been a shock for our traditional supporters - including me - but there is also no doubt that by signing up to this agreement the Lib Dems are actually achieving stuff, like a referendum on voting reform, which we have been going on about for decades. We have a commitment to fixed term parliaments, a promised reform of party funding, a commitment to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament and a long delayed - by Labour - reform of the House of Lords. We campaigned on all these issues at the election and they are now being introduced. Tell me, where's the beef?
We have got the tax threshold raised, as we promised at the election. We have a commitment to restore the link between pensions and earnings, which the Labour Party failed to do for 13 years. We have a commitment to greater freedoms for teachers and health workers to do their jobs, fair compensation for Equitable Life pensioners.
We have Vince Cable as Business Secretary, Chris Huhne as Energy Secretary, Norman Baker responsible for Transport. People who know what they are doing - LD people - are in the right jobs. We must give them time to effect real change.
The 'but' is that they are part of a coalition, which requires compromise. I don't suppose that Chris Huhne ever imagined that he would be declaring his support for nuclear power in Parliament but he is a pragmatist and he knows that if he wants to deliver LD changes to our energy policy he must compromise. That's the real world of politics which we must get used to.
The key for us is that in five years' time, assuming that the date for the next election is honoured, we will be able to enter an election telling voters that Lib Dems have been in government, we have demonstrated our ability to work with other parties, we have demonstrated that we can actually get things done and that for the first time in almost a century a Lib Dem vote can be clearly, unequivocally demonstrated to be anything but a wasted vote.
Courage, mes braves. Its a long road, a rocky one but the destination might just be worth it.
Monday, 9 August 2010
NUCLEAR POWER? NO CHANCE
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has announced that new, privately owned nuclear power stations will be up and running by 2018 and that they will receive no government subsidy. This, I assume, is the same Chris Huhne who bemoaned the abject situation in his new department when he took over in May this year. At the time, he complained bitterly about the fact that almost all of his budget for the foreseeable future would need to be spent on nuclear decommissioning, giving him virtually nothing to spend on renewables, which of course have the advantage of being, well, renewable.
What will change with new, private nuclear power stations? Will energy companies who seek to build these new stations be required to pay into a fund to cover future decommissioning costs? I think I can answer that with a resounding 'no' because as soon as any such costs - even taken at today's prices, which will doubtless rocket in future decades - are taken into account the cost of new nuclear power capacity would become hopelessly uneconomic. The clear, obvious outcome of new nuclear power generation to even the most short-sighted of politicians, which Chris Huhne certainly is not, will be huge, unknown costs for a future government when whichever private company decides to build these facilities either ceases to exist or simply walks away, leaving taxpayers with the bill for the mess.
Don't kid us - or yourself - Chris: there will be a taxpayer subsidy for new nuclear power capacity, just not immediately - and when it does arise the cost will be vast.
For the record, I'm not a woolly lefty who is against nuclear power for the sake of it. I simply believe that it is a failed technology. Nuclear power creates by-products which are among the most dangerous we know about and which cannot be made safe for hundreds of thousands of years. How many governments, countries or even civilisations do you know of which have lasted for 500,000 years. There weren't even human beings on the planet 500,000 years ago so who on earth can tell us with any confidence that this problem can be dealt with.
And yes, I am aware that we rely on nuclear power at the moment for a sizeable proportion of our energy usage. Well, we used to burn witches and bait bears but then we decided that we should move on.
We will end up paying and we will be saddled with an intractable problem. That's just not good business or good government. Why can't money be invested in renewables, cleaner existing technology and nuclear fusion, which has the potential to work and to be safe, instead of wasted on what are certain to be financial black holes in the future? Anyone who says it can't be done, consider the difference between a Ford Capri, using technology from 40 years ago, and a low emission, smaller engine, higher torque modern diesel car, of which there is a range to choose from. Similarly, remember a world without the internet? That was less than 20 years ago. I read just this week of a new invention, a bottle with an ultra-violet light powered by a wind up mechanism which can sterilise water in 90 seconds. Brilliant, simple and with the potential to revolutionise the way millions of people live.
I know he reads my blog (!) so here's a plea to Chris Huhne: remember you're a Lib Dem first and climb out of the box, where the thinking is easier. We have innovated our way out of problems before and the impetus can be given by government to do it again, not just to latch onto old technology for a short term fix with a very long term cost. Isn't that the role of a dynamic ministry?
However, if you choose to go down the path of backing nuclear fission, make sure the companies who build these new stations pay upfront into a discrete, invested fund to deal with the consequences of their actions for generations to come - and make the cost realistic, such as 10% of the current annual cost to the taxpayer of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations. Don't do as British governments have done for decades and simply fail to deal with this problem now before it arises. Plan now for all our futures.
Finally, a note: no new nuclear power station has been built for decades. One is being built in Finland which is about 4 years behind schedule and 50% over budget. The model doesn't work, countless safety issues have been found with the design and it is still under construction. I wonder if the Secretary of State would care to comment on this.
What will change with new, private nuclear power stations? Will energy companies who seek to build these new stations be required to pay into a fund to cover future decommissioning costs? I think I can answer that with a resounding 'no' because as soon as any such costs - even taken at today's prices, which will doubtless rocket in future decades - are taken into account the cost of new nuclear power capacity would become hopelessly uneconomic. The clear, obvious outcome of new nuclear power generation to even the most short-sighted of politicians, which Chris Huhne certainly is not, will be huge, unknown costs for a future government when whichever private company decides to build these facilities either ceases to exist or simply walks away, leaving taxpayers with the bill for the mess.
Don't kid us - or yourself - Chris: there will be a taxpayer subsidy for new nuclear power capacity, just not immediately - and when it does arise the cost will be vast.
For the record, I'm not a woolly lefty who is against nuclear power for the sake of it. I simply believe that it is a failed technology. Nuclear power creates by-products which are among the most dangerous we know about and which cannot be made safe for hundreds of thousands of years. How many governments, countries or even civilisations do you know of which have lasted for 500,000 years. There weren't even human beings on the planet 500,000 years ago so who on earth can tell us with any confidence that this problem can be dealt with.
And yes, I am aware that we rely on nuclear power at the moment for a sizeable proportion of our energy usage. Well, we used to burn witches and bait bears but then we decided that we should move on.
We will end up paying and we will be saddled with an intractable problem. That's just not good business or good government. Why can't money be invested in renewables, cleaner existing technology and nuclear fusion, which has the potential to work and to be safe, instead of wasted on what are certain to be financial black holes in the future? Anyone who says it can't be done, consider the difference between a Ford Capri, using technology from 40 years ago, and a low emission, smaller engine, higher torque modern diesel car, of which there is a range to choose from. Similarly, remember a world without the internet? That was less than 20 years ago. I read just this week of a new invention, a bottle with an ultra-violet light powered by a wind up mechanism which can sterilise water in 90 seconds. Brilliant, simple and with the potential to revolutionise the way millions of people live.
I know he reads my blog (!) so here's a plea to Chris Huhne: remember you're a Lib Dem first and climb out of the box, where the thinking is easier. We have innovated our way out of problems before and the impetus can be given by government to do it again, not just to latch onto old technology for a short term fix with a very long term cost. Isn't that the role of a dynamic ministry?
However, if you choose to go down the path of backing nuclear fission, make sure the companies who build these new stations pay upfront into a discrete, invested fund to deal with the consequences of their actions for generations to come - and make the cost realistic, such as 10% of the current annual cost to the taxpayer of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations. Don't do as British governments have done for decades and simply fail to deal with this problem now before it arises. Plan now for all our futures.
Finally, a note: no new nuclear power station has been built for decades. One is being built in Finland which is about 4 years behind schedule and 50% over budget. The model doesn't work, countless safety issues have been found with the design and it is still under construction. I wonder if the Secretary of State would care to comment on this.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
NUCLEAR POWER REMAINS THE BIGGEST WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE WORLD
There is a fascinating article in the Guardian concerning the true cost of nuclear power stations. The new Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, has announced that the country faces an unavoidable cost for cleaning up old nuclear waste and decommissioning facilities of around £4bn over coming years. This is equivalent to one-sixth of the overall planned cuts to reduce the budget deficit and completely puts the lie to the notion that nuclear power is affordable or practical.
Huhne has pointed out that the huge cost to his department of this necessary cleanup means that in effect it will be able to do nothing else, least of all invest in sustainable new technologies for energy generation.
The outcome of this horrendous expense is likely to be the final death knell for any plans for new nuclear power stations, which the coalition has agreed can only go ahead if they are built with no public subsidy and clear plans for their full costs over their whole lifetime. It is simply not possible for any private company to provide such guarantees, even the French government-subsidised EDF, which is the main outfit proposing this at the moment.
Finally, may I respond in advance to any scientists who tell me nuclear is the only option for our energy future. It isn't: it is an expensive white elephant which produces as much carbon as a conventional power station over its lifetime and the product of these facilities is some of the most dangerous materials the world has ever seen, materials which will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years - long after EDF, Britain and France have ceased to exist. What happens then? The argument over nuclear fission has been had and comprehensively lost. The first nuclear power stations were only built because the figures were massaged to significantly understate the risks.
Anyone with an interest in developing nuclear technology needs to devote themselves to fusion. After all, a billion stars can't be wrong, can they? They might also address the shameful question of where wave power is? If ever there was an obvious source of energy for this, er, island, it is wave power.
So thank you nuclear industry for hobbling all our futures.
Huhne has pointed out that the huge cost to his department of this necessary cleanup means that in effect it will be able to do nothing else, least of all invest in sustainable new technologies for energy generation.
The outcome of this horrendous expense is likely to be the final death knell for any plans for new nuclear power stations, which the coalition has agreed can only go ahead if they are built with no public subsidy and clear plans for their full costs over their whole lifetime. It is simply not possible for any private company to provide such guarantees, even the French government-subsidised EDF, which is the main outfit proposing this at the moment.
Finally, may I respond in advance to any scientists who tell me nuclear is the only option for our energy future. It isn't: it is an expensive white elephant which produces as much carbon as a conventional power station over its lifetime and the product of these facilities is some of the most dangerous materials the world has ever seen, materials which will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years - long after EDF, Britain and France have ceased to exist. What happens then? The argument over nuclear fission has been had and comprehensively lost. The first nuclear power stations were only built because the figures were massaged to significantly understate the risks.
Anyone with an interest in developing nuclear technology needs to devote themselves to fusion. After all, a billion stars can't be wrong, can they? They might also address the shameful question of where wave power is? If ever there was an obvious source of energy for this, er, island, it is wave power.
So thank you nuclear industry for hobbling all our futures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)