It was a bracing interview this morning with someone named Ian. A pal from campaigning days in the early 80s contacted me with the message ‘Just like old times’.
In 1980 a small group of us met in Aberystwyth to establish the Welsh Anti-nuclear Alliance (WANA). This morning’s interviews on Radio Wales and Radio Cymru were reminiscent of the powerful message that WANA preached.
Ian was not well briefed. He even accused me of opposing nuclear power to ‘win votes.’ I trust the listeners to BBC Wales know me well enough to know that considerations of popularity never feature in my judgements.
Like all spokespeople for the Nuclear Establishment he tried the usual blackmailing threat of ‘Nuclear or blackout’. It’s all cobblers. A fantasy scenario was devised which created a power crises in a decade when the AGR reactors closed down. The Government surrendered and announced a new nuke building programme. Within a month it was announced that the AGRs were good for an additional ten years. The power crisis had miraculously disappeared.
It’s still gone. We have time to devise a range of alternative renewable processes. The Welsh Assembly is leading with a pioneering marine energy plan.
Nuclear plans should be scrapped on financial grounds. They have always been a financial basket case. The new nukes will need heavy subsidies. If we invested in renewables a hundredth of the £93 billion we are spending to clear up the last nuclear waste, we could have a clean sustainable energy future.
Ian was pessimistic. He ignores the non-nuclear future planned for Scotland and Ireland. It will not be costs that will skewer new nuclear. It’s the fear of a Fukushima here that will inflame public opinion.
People are content to have a solar panel on their roof. They will suffer nagging anxiety if they live near a nuclear power station.
Newport Tsunami
Fascinated to see Newsnight mentioning that even in the Bristol Channel nuclear power stations are at risk from flooding. Hinckley did in the late 80s but not seriously.
It was some time ago that the tsunami drowned hundreds of people in an area that is now part of my Newport West constituency. The event is still recalled in the church of Peterstone Wentloog where a line marks the water level.
Several nukes are located in the areas that flooded. No point in getting too worried. It happened in 1607.
EO EO EO EO ....A.M. THE RAIN IS FAILING. YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU ARE SO CONFUSED. YOU CAN'T MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.... HA HA HA HA ......
Posted by: Cheap Nike Shox | April 06, 2011 at 05:06 AM
Patrick, you are ignoring those situations where driving or use of power are necessary.
Sure people can cut the unnecessary parts, but then you get down to the bone where you have to travel for work for example or when light and heat are essential.
We can even cut into what we believe to be essential but there is a point beyond which anything remotely like our level of culture cannot go.
It is there that price rises will make you poorer whatever you do.
In the meantime however, those who choose to use less are making savings as the price for energy is the same for everyone but those who use less pay less.
The ability of renewables to completely replace our current need or ever hope to meet future need is far from certain.
We do all know that what is in finite supply will eventually run out and as living standards and power requirements rise in previously undeveloped countries, as well as ours, that does hasten the time that it will come.
RTS is looking at one strand of hopefulness while you are looking at another, they are not and do not need to be exclusive and they are also not the sum total of possibilities.
Posted by: HuwOS | March 21, 2011 at 05:54 PM
“Generating less will only result in the price going up. The rules of supply and demand apply. This will serve only to make people poorer and our businesses less competative - thus making yet more people poorer. Who benefits from that situation?”
As the jury is still out on whether we are accelerating the speed of our own demise via man made global warming then the answer to your question would be everybody that lives on our planet.
If our actions are not causing global warming the fact still is that our home is getting hotter at a rate that is unprecedented.
Dwindling natural resources mean that an ever increasing world population cannot possibly continue to waste them as we in the west have for years.
Putting the price of fuel or electricity up does not make me poorer , it makes me drive and use less.
The UK and Ireland (both surrounded by coast) have the ability to create all of our energy needs via solar, wind , and wave.
Posted by: patrick | March 21, 2011 at 05:33 PM
"Generating less will only result in the price going up"
I don't believe Patrick mentioned generating less, he talked of using less.
Whatever your opinion of that view, it is a bit rich misrepresenting it so soon after objecting to Paul's response to you
"It's a myth that no work has been done on fusion." Paul
"No one has claimed this." RTS
No one claimed this and no one suggested a reduction in power generation, but that some serious level of attention be given to reducing overall consumption.
Reducing consumption is something the western world is going to have to do unless some new source of energy is found, whether that is fusion or something else, so we might as well be doing what we can about reducing demand because the reality is that there is currently and for the foreseeable future no magic bullet.
Posted by: HuwOS | March 21, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Patrick "I'm glad somebody has mentioned using less power rather than the usual championing their vested interests in creating more."
I don't have any vested interest other than generating more is only good sense.
Generating less will only result in the price going up. The rules of supply and demand apply. This will serve only to make people poorer and our businesses less competative - thus making yet more people poorer. Who benefits from that situation?
Posted by: RTS | March 21, 2011 at 03:11 PM
Paul "Fusion MAY be a possibility in the dim and distant future. It is no more more a practical possibility now than alchemy once was."
Or of *renewables* forming the backbone of our power supply.
"It's a myth that no work has been done on fusion."
No one has claimed this.
"It has made no progress."
This is a lie. Significant progress is made in all area currently being researched.
"It's also a myth that throwing £billions at research will bring positive results."
There are many areas of fusion research that are starved of funds. Given it's importance it would be prudent for all avenues to be explored. Given politican's general ignorance in technology and science (how many of the current serving MPs are actually scientifically trained - I'll bet good money its a woefully small number) it's understandable, but given the subsidies being lavished on renewables (both direct subsidies and the price fixing for wind farms) it's positively criminal.
I didn't expect you to know anything about fusion, but similarly I don't expect you to dismiss it on the basis of half remembered titbits.
Information first, opinion second.
Posted by: RTS | March 21, 2011 at 03:07 PM
I'm glad somebody has mentioned using less power rather than the usual championing their vested interests in creating more.
We know that should we all consume resources as Americans do we would need five Earth's to do so.
Should we show a fraction of the interest in wasting our resources and creating more power in USING LESS RESOURCES AND LIVING SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES then there would not be a problem.
But yet again i forgot, sustainability only helps FUTURE GENERATIONS.
So we might as well carry on with our pathetic lives of frivolous foreign travel, multiple cars per houshold, central heating,tumble driers and two baths a day etc............................................
Posted by: patrick | March 21, 2011 at 08:21 AM
Will do.
Paul Flynn
01633 262348/02072193478/ 07887925699
Posted by: Paul Flynn | March 20, 2011 at 09:35 AM
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140963819304962
I hope you will consider joining us in the world wide "light out" event to show we would rather have less electricity than nuclear energy.
Posted by: Chrystal | March 19, 2011 at 09:49 PM
Fusion MAY be a possibility in the dim and distant future. It is no more more a practical possibility now than alchemy once was. A lot of effort went into proving that could not work. We are no nearer achieving fusion than we were half a century ago. It's a myth that no work has been done on fusion. It has made no progress. It's also a myth that throwing £billions at research will bring positive results. It probably won't,
What is certainly true is that fusion has no part in practical planning for energy generation in the forseeible future.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | March 19, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Because something is difficult we shouldn't bother? Put it this way Paul, the UK's total commitment to fusion (since research began) is less than the proposed cost of a high speed rail link between Birmingham and London, and looking around the world the commitment isn't much better.
If the Apollo program had been as underfunded as fusion has been then we'd still be waiting for the 1st man to land on the moon.
the reality of our energy situation is simple: we're ALWAYS going be increasing our energy demands, switching from coal, oil and fusion to technolgies with considerably lower energy densities is a non-starter.
Whatever machines we use to generate the lion's share of our power in the future I'll bet you good money they won't look like windmills.
Take your point about the £93 billion being spend on decommisioning old reactors, that's 10 times ITER's current budget. So we spend 10 times as much cleaning up old fission installations than the EU spend on fusion. That's not really commited now is it? And if a project as difficult as fusion doesn't have commitment how can it succeed.
The irony being the lack of commitment has resulted in the lack of results, and now the lack of results justify a lack of commitment. Ain't politics grand.
Posted by: RTS | March 19, 2011 at 01:36 AM
Fusion?
I remember the promise of ZETA, that would produce energy 'too cheap to meter' When was that/ About 1958. We are still waiting.
The mots recent forecast I herad was that fusion was '50 years away.' It always has been
Posted by: Paul Flynn | March 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Wind and solar or wave power will never form the backbone of our electricity grid, the energy density just isn't high enough I'm afraid.
In fact so much money being poured into them annoys me, we should be focusing on fusion. Given the importance of cracking that technology the amount actually spent on developing it is tiny. The UK *I think* spent about 40 million last year (correct me if I'm wrong).
You want an environmental cause to champion? Then look to fusion. It is the energy silver bullet. Limitless power, clean, safe and no carbon dioxide emissions. Forget wind turbines, future generations will chuckle in history classes as we're mocked for messing around with such an expensive, inefficient (not to mention unsightly) means of generating energy.
Until then, build some more nice coal fired stations and pump the emissions into giant bio-reactors. Not as pretty, but at least the lights won't go out if the weather's wrong.
Posted by: RTS | March 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Many thanks.
Have you more details/ Date? etc?
Paul Flynn
01633 262348/02072193478/ 07887925699
Posted by: Paul Flynn | March 17, 2011 at 09:50 AM
The government relented and announced a nuclear program of new construction. In a month it was announced that the IGA has been good for another decade. The energy crisis had miraculously disappeared.
Posted by: Solar Panel Installers | March 17, 2011 at 08:38 AM
Off topic but anyone seen this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12757244
Interestingly novel definition of acquitted that the BBC are using here.
Posted by: HuwOS | March 16, 2011 at 01:15 PM
It’s the fear of a Fukushima here that will inflame public opinion.
Posted by: cheap jordans | March 16, 2011 at 12:00 PM