Reply to Topic
So, that's in then. To the suprise of no-one the Government's Energy Review has proclaimed Nuclear Energy to be the saviour of our soot-choked earth.
Which is nice, because that's what the Government wanted it to decide. I love it when joined-up government works.
So, Britain'll be building an unspecified number of nuclear power plants in unspecified locations at an unspecified date, which is unusually precise information for an administration that usually issues white papers with policies like "people who are bad should be punished" and "it might be nice if fewer pensioners died of starvation".
I'm not particularly anti-nuclear. There's a lot in its favour, after all. It's reliable, clean and, at the actual point of electricity generation, carbon neutral. It also guarantees "energy security" (That's government-speak for "we really don't like dealing with OPEC"), seeing as the countries rich with uranium deposits tend to be warm, fuzzy liberal democracies with relatively good records for not stoning people to death. Well, except Khazakhstan who aren't as fluffy, but seeing as they control 25% of the world's known uranium we probably won't be seeing outright condemnation of them anytime soon.
But, there are problems. Uranium, like oil, is a finite resource. Even the most vehemently optimistic studies suggest there's only around a century's worth of the stuff lying around, and that's at today's consumption rate. If every country feeling the energy squeeze decides to go nuclear we could see that cut to a half or less. This is a two-fold nasty, really. Firstly it only passes our problems on to the next generation (and we've all seen how well that works), secondly it leaves nuclear-dependent countries with a lot of useless, expensive hunks of concrete and steel lying about that'll require a second national mortgage to properly decomission. There are ways to aquire uranium that don't require ripping up vast tracts of Australia. But they're either untested or prohibitively expensive, expensive in the we-may-as-well-burn-faberge-eggs-to-keep-warm sense.
The second problem is a social one. On the opposite page of the Guardian that covered the Energy Review was a story about the unpopularity of physics at degree level. I did a little research and discovered, yes, there's a serious shortfall in the number of physicists throughout the west.
Um.
So we're relying on nuclear power for the next century's energy needs, but we don't have enough physicists? That's sort of like deciding to serve roast dodo at a dinner party. It's not all bad, though. We're knee-deep in design students so, while our atom mills might have an annoying tendency to explode, they will be tastefully decorated. Nothing takes the edge off nuclear annihilation like scatter cushions and pastel drapes.
Thinking of being reduced to a shadow burned into a brick wall, that's my third point. Nuclear power is not risk free. I have an aunt who lives inside the Sizewell B Red Zone (that's the area around a plant with very, very low property prices) who got issued an emergency manual by the government. In case of "critical control failure" those in the orange zone should attempt to make their way to outside the yellow zone. There are no tips for those inside the red zone, just a couple of psalms and the Lord's prayer. I realize that the actual risk of a meltdown is very low outside my favourite videogame (Sim City, booyah), but it's still precisely the sort of thing that's going to keep me awake at night. In the modern world there are a lot of people trying to kill me; terrorists, nutty cults and slighted design students to name a few. Exactly the sort of people insane or stupid enough to take it upon themselves to turn the whole of southern England into one great big Red Zone. Factor that with human error, technical breakdown and the vagaries of the private sector and you've got a nice recipe for Oh God We're Doomed.
So, what's the alternative? Fossil Fuels'll get us in the long run anyway, renewable energy is a bit of a non-starter in terms of ever being more than a top-up to our core supply and theoretical technologies are, well, theoretical. The hydrogen economy's a nice idea, but it's just too utopian to work in the real world. If it ever gets off the ground technically, it'll be banned because some kid'll use his family's fuel cell to blow up his school.
First person to solve the global energy crisis wins a lollipop and assassination by the Ford Motor Company.
Which is nice, because that's what the Government wanted it to decide. I love it when joined-up government works.
So, Britain'll be building an unspecified number of nuclear power plants in unspecified locations at an unspecified date, which is unusually precise information for an administration that usually issues white papers with policies like "people who are bad should be punished" and "it might be nice if fewer pensioners died of starvation".
I'm not particularly anti-nuclear. There's a lot in its favour, after all. It's reliable, clean and, at the actual point of electricity generation, carbon neutral. It also guarantees "energy security" (That's government-speak for "we really don't like dealing with OPEC"), seeing as the countries rich with uranium deposits tend to be warm, fuzzy liberal democracies with relatively good records for not stoning people to death. Well, except Khazakhstan who aren't as fluffy, but seeing as they control 25% of the world's known uranium we probably won't be seeing outright condemnation of them anytime soon.
But, there are problems. Uranium, like oil, is a finite resource. Even the most vehemently optimistic studies suggest there's only around a century's worth of the stuff lying around, and that's at today's consumption rate. If every country feeling the energy squeeze decides to go nuclear we could see that cut to a half or less. This is a two-fold nasty, really. Firstly it only passes our problems on to the next generation (and we've all seen how well that works), secondly it leaves nuclear-dependent countries with a lot of useless, expensive hunks of concrete and steel lying about that'll require a second national mortgage to properly decomission. There are ways to aquire uranium that don't require ripping up vast tracts of Australia. But they're either untested or prohibitively expensive, expensive in the we-may-as-well-burn-faberge-eggs-to-keep-warm sense.
The second problem is a social one. On the opposite page of the Guardian that covered the Energy Review was a story about the unpopularity of physics at degree level. I did a little research and discovered, yes, there's a serious shortfall in the number of physicists throughout the west.
Um.
So we're relying on nuclear power for the next century's energy needs, but we don't have enough physicists? That's sort of like deciding to serve roast dodo at a dinner party. It's not all bad, though. We're knee-deep in design students so, while our atom mills might have an annoying tendency to explode, they will be tastefully decorated. Nothing takes the edge off nuclear annihilation like scatter cushions and pastel drapes.
Thinking of being reduced to a shadow burned into a brick wall, that's my third point. Nuclear power is not risk free. I have an aunt who lives inside the Sizewell B Red Zone (that's the area around a plant with very, very low property prices) who got issued an emergency manual by the government. In case of "critical control failure" those in the orange zone should attempt to make their way to outside the yellow zone. There are no tips for those inside the red zone, just a couple of psalms and the Lord's prayer. I realize that the actual risk of a meltdown is very low outside my favourite videogame (Sim City, booyah), but it's still precisely the sort of thing that's going to keep me awake at night. In the modern world there are a lot of people trying to kill me; terrorists, nutty cults and slighted design students to name a few. Exactly the sort of people insane or stupid enough to take it upon themselves to turn the whole of southern England into one great big Red Zone. Factor that with human error, technical breakdown and the vagaries of the private sector and you've got a nice recipe for Oh God We're Doomed.
So, what's the alternative? Fossil Fuels'll get us in the long run anyway, renewable energy is a bit of a non-starter in terms of ever being more than a top-up to our core supply and theoretical technologies are, well, theoretical. The hydrogen economy's a nice idea, but it's just too utopian to work in the real world. If it ever gets off the ground technically, it'll be banned because some kid'll use his family's fuel cell to blow up his school.
First person to solve the global energy crisis wins a lollipop and assassination by the Ford Motor Company.
