THE spectre of catastrophic climate change is forcing nations around the
world to question how they make their energy. With carbon dioxide pushing up the
global temperature, most governments agree that they must move away from the
Victorian technologies of burning coal and oil towards cleaner options. But
which ones?
Logically, one solution should be nuclear power because it emits no carbon.
That鈥檚 certainly what the nuclear industry argues, and it is one reason why
countries such as China, Japan and the US, are contemplating building more
nuclear power stations. That logic, however, is flawed, argues the British
government鈥檚 energy review, the latest draft of which was leaked to New
杏吧原创 this week
(see 鈥淒eath knell sounds for nuclear energy鈥�).
This independent assessment shows that the
cost assumptions of the past were over-optimistic: nuclear power is relatively
expensive. To rub salt in the wound, it says nuclear power is feared by the
public and burdened with the 鈥渦nsolved problem鈥� of radioactive waste. What鈥檚
more, the nuclear industry鈥檚 future building plans are 鈥渓arge and relatively
inflexible鈥�, it says.
Instead, the review argues that a combination of renewable energy schemes and
improved energy efficiency would be better, cheaper and offer more security. It
would mean building thousands of new wind turbines, first on land then at sea,
followed by wave machines and underwater tidal generators. Biomass plants would
help to smooth out the peaks and troughs of these intermittent sources. The
review envisions a more complex, flexible system hooking together hundreds of
small generators. It is, the review says, 鈥渁 radical agenda鈥� which would send
Britain in a totally new direction.
Advertisement
To make all this happen will take some serious rethinking. It would need
investment in research and development to bring on nascent technologies and a
range of incentives to encourage companies to build energy farms. The kind of
dramatic leap in energy efficiency the review proposes would also mean creating
new incentives. Conserving energy is a worthy goal, but it鈥檚 just not 鈥渟exy鈥� and
often means large injections of cash. Still, the review concludes that even in
the home鈥攚here lots of energy is wasted鈥攊t wouldn鈥檛 take much money
to make large savings.
The review鈥檚 proposals undoubtedly carry serious repercussions. The biggest
casualty would be the nuclear power industry, which would wind down in the
coming decades. The coal industry would disappear鈥攖hough it鈥檚 been living
on borrowed time for years. The oil industry would also take a beating, though
it has fast been giving itself a green makeover by investing in renewable energy
technologies.
The review paints a picture of an energy policy that could set an example to
the world. When it is delivered to Prime Minister Tony Blair later this month,
he should seize the opportunity with both hands. It is the nearest thing yet to
his cherished notion of the 鈥済reen industrial revolution鈥�.
