March 09, 2005
Time to get serious
Time for a Manhattan Project to combat global warming. I would have linked to the original article if it wasn't behind a paywall.
I don't like it much, but I have to agree with Lord May - in practise, we need to go nuclear. I mean, yes, in theory, if we adjusted our lifestyles enough, and invested enough in renewable power, we could do without it, but I really can't see it happening.
Can you? Really?
Posted to The Big Room by Simon Brunning at March 09, 2005 03:38 PM
Hang on a minute. You say 'if we invest enough in renewable power'. But in order to go nuclear we'd also have to invest enormously in nuclear power. So what's the difference (except of course the enormous potential dangers and the fact that we seem to be completely incapable of storing radioactive waste for 5 years safely, let alone the 100,000 years actually required)?
It seems to have become the orthodoxy now that renewable sources can't do the job. Where is the evidence? I haven't seen any. All I see is people saying we need nuclear but not showing me why or how.
You'd need 20,000 wind turbines to provide the UK's power. Not literally impossible, but it isn't going to happen, is it?
Besides, the UK isn't really the problem. The UK can and should lead by example, but our emissions are dwarfed by those that the developing economies will produce if an alternative to fossil fuels aren't available. Good luck selling wind farms to China.
And then there's the US...
Thing is, I'm getting worried about my kids' futures. If it's left to the well meaning renewable advocates, too little will be done, too late.