http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992499
There's an inevitability to this that is completely
missed in the article linked to above. This great
"missing of the point" is illustrated best in this
paragraph:
>
> Gordon MacKerron, a leading economist
> involved in preparing the PIU energy report,
> points out that in Britain a nuclear power
> station that could compete economically with
> other forms of energy has never been built.
> "Competitive nuclear power is still at best an
> untested proposition," he says.
>
Is it any surprise that this comes from an
economist? It's true to say that nuclear power
cannot compete with, say, natural gas-fired
stations at the moment. But only someone whose
bought into the nonsense of market capitalism
would believe that's always going to be the case.
The government is aware that nuke plants cost
more than gas plants. So why are they planning
nukes? Could it be that they're admitting what
economists can't... that the gas is running out;
and an expensive replacement is better than none?
Of course, wind farms are more cost-effective, and
less hassle all round; they'd be my replacement
for the power grid if i thought the power grid was
going to survive... but the wind-power folks clearly
don't have the political clout of BNFL and their
cohorts.
The decision to go with nukes is plain madness;
but it's nonetheless a tacit admission that the
government is aware that a replacement for fossil
fuels needs to be found. That there isn't one has
probably yet to sink in.
|
