Just over a month ago I posted about my opposition to new nuclear power stations on the basis that the problem with energy in this country was not that we didn't have enough but that - like water - we leak far to much of it. I'll admit I didn't come to this argument on my own, I happen to work with a Greenpeace activist who I argue with vehemently about a lot of things but on this particular subject he had me convinced. Today, in The Times, Mary Ann Sieghart , has written a comment piece about precisely such a policy. Her general assertion is that now that Blair and Brown have posted their flags firmly in the nuclear camp (pre-empting their own review), that Cameron should be bold and really stamp out the Party's green credentials by promoting the Greenpeace postion in it's response to the Government review. I couldn't agree more.
2 comments:
Large centralised power generation is a soviet style idea.
There is so much technology available to localise production, micro turbines and fuel cells being two such options. Renewable sources also fit far better into a localised form of generation.
I am pro-nuclear.
But - localised generation makes a lot of sense. One such idea is that instead of burying huge quantities of waste, it's a far better idea to burn the stuff to make electricity - at a local level. Each town having their own incinerator is a great start. If we don't recycle paper, then burning it is the second best option. In fact, for some types of paper, the environmental benefit of recycling is only marginal - and if it's transported to China to be recycled, the most environmentally friendly option is to burn it! Paper comes from trees, so is relatively carbon neutral if the trees are sustainable.
Would the nimby's prefer this option to nuclear power stations?
Post a Comment