Unclear about nuclear

The results are in. The doctor looks you straight in the eye. You’ve been avoiding this issue for too long. It’s time to change your ways if you want to avoid an early demise.  

Humanity has been denying and minimising climate change for decades, but most of us now accept that, if we want a future for our species, we must stop emitting carbon dioxide. And that means change, now. But how? 

The prescription could be solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectricity, tidal, biogas and biomass, - combined with energy storage, green hydrogen, insulation and demand management. The carbon calculations need to include the energy needed to construct the infrastructure, and energy storage must be sufficient to take us through those calm, cloudy days, - and winter. Should we install solar panels on as many roofs as possible? Can we afford to lose good farmland to solar? Can we accept the punctuation of our favourite horizon by turbine blades? Are dams OK? What about the wading birds? How much land can be used for bio-fuel without compromising food security? Not to mention belching cows. So many questions! 

Some say that the sums won’t add up unless we include nuclear energy in the mix. About 15% of UK electricity is generated by nuclear at present compared to 69% in France, but worldwide it is falling out of favour due to perceived risk and uncertain long-term costs. Several countries including Germany and Italy are now committed to phasing nuclear out. 

How should we deal with these complicated issues? If we are honest many of us make our minds up based on political leanings don’t we? Left for renewable, right for nuclear, then look for evidence to back up our prejudice.  

Ideally a community’s strategic energy policy should be determined by careful, rational thought based on the very best, evidence-based advice. But how can this be achieved in our country and world as they actually are? 

I’m still unclear about nuclear, but I’m certain that the Free Market is no way to decide. 

Bob Turner