Please Stop Complaining About Nuclear Power
If you live in the UK you will not have escaped the big furore over nuclear power this week following the release of the British Government’s energy policy which has decidedly committed the country to the nuclear path, signalling the first live shot in the climate change battle.
People want energy, people don’t want energy production. And we are bored of hearing too many complaints and not enough alternative ideas.
Whichever way we turn, we are likely to face opposition to new energy supplies. Few people have confidence in nuclear power, and even fewer people want a nuclear power station on their doorstep. Many people object to local environmental impacts of renewable energy production, and there remain big concerns about the viability of renewable energy on the required scale. Still more people object to fossil fuels due to Co2 emissions, and governments are nervous about what is required to maintain supply (plutonium and uranium can be easily purchased from friendly countries, oil and gas from less friendly countries).
Those who are concerned about the future economic impacts of climate change should also be concerned about the future impacts of the world’s previous energy policies which were for too long been based on the assumption that we could indefinitely keep pulling stuff out of the ground and burn it. Â British household energy prices this winter have risen by as much as 27%, driven by depleting fossil reserves and increasing global demand. The price of oil at over $100 a barrel reflects similar issues. The high cost of building additional nuclear plants, and additional renewable energy supplies (a certain percentage of Britain’s energy must now be renewable by law) will likely further increase prices in the future.
Just maybe this might bring more people around to another option: If you can’t influence supply, then try to influence demand.
What is underestimated and too often forgotten in these endless debates is the true potential for improvements in efficiency. A quick search on Google reveals estimates of anywhere between 20 and 40% as easily achievable targets for the Western world. Energy wastage is everywhere, encouraged until now by low prices and general lack of serious focus. When we are asleep our house draws almost a third as much power as when we are awake due to numerous poorly designed and energy hungry appliances - this cannot make sense.
We might suggest that an aggressive focus on energy efficiency as an integrated part of future energy production plans might go some way towards easing the current pain. It would make expensive energy bills easier to swallow, renewable energy resources more viable, and nuclear plants easier to sell to the public.
When we say aggressive, we mean that clearly we are not doing all that we can already. For example: I still can’t find energy saving alternatives to 150 watt light bulbs, and for all the good that it might do the planet I’m just not prepared to scrabble around on the floor every night unplugging devices which should just have an off switch. Public transport in most parts of the world is a disgrace, thousands of computers whirr away all night long in office buildings, the list is endless.
Let’s start pursuing energy efficiency as vigorously as we pursue oil and gas supplies, and in the meantime let’s be happy that we have nuclear power to keep the lights on.
I agree that we need to “start pursuing energy efficiency as vigorously as we pursue oil and gas supplies”. To make that happen we may need to make the persuit of efficiency as lucrative as the persuit of oil and gas has been for the past century. What is the best way do that? Use a carbon tax to make profligate energey use more expensive? Carbon taxes may have disproportionate impacts on the poor. Should we have ‘graduated’ carbon taxes where the tax rate increases with the amount consumed?