Nuclear power is vital to our future, says Huhne in energy U-turn

Energy Secretary Chris Huhne yesterday completed a dramatic personal U-turn and declared: ‘We need nuclear.’ Mr Huhne said the technology was vital in ensuring Britain could keep the lights on while tackling climate change.

Despite widespread opposition from his Liberal Democrat colleagues, he confirmed plans to press ahead with eight new nuclear power stations as all but one of the UK’s current reactors will be decommissioned by 2023.

In the most pro-nuclear speech by a Cabinet minister for years, Mr Huhne, who campaigned against nuclear power before taking office, told the Royal Society: ‘Nuclear energy has risks, but we face the greater risk of accelerating climate change if we do not embark on another generation of nuclear power. Time is running out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048787/Chris-Huhne-Nuclear-power-vital-future.html?ITO=1490

They are determined to avoid the excessive risks associated with nuclear energy.

The dead are silent of course, but their deaths speak to those who knew and loved them.

And in Japan there will be many deaths due to Fukushima. Do we want a Fukushima here? Do the British want a Fukushima in their country?

that they're importing power from.

The only difference is that German euros are now lining the pockets of the french and chzech... instead of other countries' euros coming in to Germany.



Just reported this week... the "absolute priority" for this decade is to add two more reactors to this plant and boost output by 150%. Any doubt as to why that is?

...it will certainly solve that annoying trade surplus tormenting Germany.

Not many countries with room to spare in that area.

"I believe nuclear electricity can and should play a part in our energy future,
provided that new nuclear is built without public subsidy."

And he knows they won't be built without a subsidy.

...depending on how you define "subsidy".

Some people take an awfully expansive view of the subject when viewing technologies that they don't favor... but a much tighter definition when looking at their favorites.

As an example. Many so-called "greens" consider the UKs plans to include quite a bit of subsidy... that Huhne does not seem to be opposing.

The right is trying to give the existing reactors a massive windfall profit. What you need to bear in mind is that this is a coalition government that will fall if the LibDems withdraw.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/13/huhne-uk-nuclear-policy-failure?newsfeed=true

According to Citigroup's analysis, if Britain pursues the goals it has set for energy efficiency and renewable energy the proposed nuclear plants will have a market for only 56% of their product:
"There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%. "

Can't get much simpler than that.

The right is trying to give the existing reactors a massive windfall profit.

Lol. By which you mean the plan to encourage low-carbon generation? Do you oppose those funds going to other low-carbon generation?

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%

Wow... your spamalot files go back at least three years, eh?

If it wasn't persuasive then (Huhne changed his position since then), what makes you think it's persuasive now?

It's pretty clear that they don't expect the "renewables target being fully delivered".

I wrote: "The right is trying to give the existing reactors a massive windfall profit."

You replied: "Lol. By which you mean the plan to encourage low-carbon generation? Do you oppose those funds going to other low-carbon generation?"

How does giving NEW subsidies to plants that have ALREADY BEEN BUILT encourage low carbon generation? It doesn't. It wastes money that would be better spent on renewables.

You don't have a case for nuclear power at all. It has always hinged on the false claim that renewables CAN'T meet our needs. Since that nuclear/coal industry myth has been completely discredited, you are reduced to increasingly transparent spin.

Or do existing wind/solar/hydro plants get them too?

You don't have a case for nuclear power at all.

None that persuades you perhaps... but your opinion doesn't seem to be carrying much weight in the UK... or finland... or china... or india... or saudi arabia... or the US... or or or.

But hey! Germany (which wasn't going to build any new reactors anyway) succumbed to paranoia. So you must imagine that you have a "case".

It has always hinged on the false claim that renewables CAN'T meet our needs.

They can't. Not when you include the "need" to do so at an affordable price any time in the next 20-30 years.

I'm all in favor of expanding them and expanding them rapidly (including agressive subsidies and research funding). It's just that that's still going to leave the world with a MASSIVE amount of coal/gas... and I'd rather not have that happen.

How does giving NEW subsidies to plants that have ALREADY BEEN BUILT encourage low carbon generation?

Do they actually cut a check to any of those plants? Or is this "subsidy" really a tax on carbon emissions? That most certainly encourages low-carbon generation.

Taxing bad behavior is really not the same thing as giving money to existing good behavior.