Roger wrote:
The message
from "Clot" contains these words:

I'm all for wind turbines as a part of the mix, but they can only be that.
We do experience periods when anticyclonic weather affects large parts of
the UK at one time.

I am not against renewable energy per se, rather the reverse in fact. It
is just that I don't think wind energy is the way to go. Unreliable,
unsightly and overly expensive for what we get. Not characteristics that
automatically elevate it to the top of the preferred option list.

Unlike TNP I am in favour of the Severn Barrage. It is claimed that this
alone could produce 10% of UK electricity demand and while that too
would be intermittent it would, within the limits of neap to spring
tides, be as absolutely dependable as any available, and, together with
a limited number of other sites spread round the coast, could satisfy
the bulk of the electricity demand 24/7.

10% of 30% is still only 3% of the total energy consumed by this country.

That is a VERY high price to pay - the complete destruction of a unique
ecosystem - for 3%.


My position is predicated on the assumption that we have to move almost
entirely away from fossil fuels for everything, *transport included*.

The development of suitable batteries means this is a practical
proposition for the first time ever.

And that energy savings of the order of 60% or more are simply not
achievable socially, economically and politically.

The windmill lobby are still ****ing in the wind when it comes to the
real issues of secure, low carbon, national energy supply. As is Kyoto.

Nuclear technology has world wide appeal: one off projects that work
with a singular feature of one countries geography by and large do not.

Its going to be bad enough transporting effectively 3x the current level
of electricity around a supergrid..let alone damming the severn..in
terms of impact.

John Hutton's statement to the FT yesterday bears this out.
----------------

Britain on nuclear power fast-track
By Jean Eaglesham, Chief Political Correspondent
Published: March 6 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 6 2008 02:00

The UK's reliance on nuclear power will increase "significantly" over
the next two decades, the business secretary said yesterday as he set
out an expansive vision of the country's atomic future.

John Hutton told the Financial Times he expected the new generation of
nuclear power stations the government wants to see built to supply much
more of the country's electricity than the 19 per cent the existing ones
deliver.

Mr Hutton also dropped the government's previous commitment to
maintaining a minimum 29.9 per cent stake in British Energy, the nuclear
generator.

Ministers have refused to be drawn on the scale of investment in new
nuclear reactors they hope to attract to the UK, saying it is for the
market to decide.

But Mr Hutton made it clear the government would pull out all the stops
to maximise the expansion of nuclear power.

"We need the maximum contribution from nuclear sources in the next 10 to
15 years," Mr Hutton said. Asked if the government wanted the share of
electricity generated from nuclear to increase beyond 19 per cent, he
replied: "That's the ambition we should have . . . I'd be very
disappointed if it's not significantly above the current level."

Replacing the UK's aging stock of reactors is seen as vital to achieving
the government's targets on cutting carbon emissions and reducing
dependence on imported gas.

After nearly a decade of indecision over the move to support a new
generation of nuclear reactors, the government is now determined to
fast-track the replacement of the 10 stations, all but one of which is
due to close by 2023. The first plant could be operational by 2017, a
year ahead of the target set in a white paper in January, Mr Hutton said.

"If we can accelerate the timescale, we should," he said. "We've got to
be completely serious about this . . . we should keep our foot down on
the pedal."

The government may sell its £2bn-plus stake in British Energy, Mr Hutton
suggested, with a decision "in the next few years". Ministers have
previously said they will not sell down the state's 39 per cent stake in
Britain's biggest electricity producer below 29.9 per cent.

"We have to consider for the medium term what view we should take about
holding on to these shares," Mr Hutton said. The government was "clear
that we don't want the taxpayers to be involved in new nuclear investment".

According to Mr Hutton, investors are queuing up for the multi-billion
pound construction programme, on the proviso that the government meets
its commitment to "clear the decks" of regulatory obstacles.

"We're in exactly the right place, I've been very encouraged by the
reaction [from investors]," he said. "It's completely confounded all
those people who said 'it's not going to happen' - it's going to happen
and in a shorter timescale than our critics predicted."