A Sensible Energy Policy

Fire of Liberty

It looks like the British people have some sensible scientists, who are well aware of the energy problem that exists and seem to have workable solutions which are more palatable than what the wacky greens present. Such a sensible energy policy is laid out in this Op/Ed in The Times by Philip Scott, an Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London. Just look at what the professor has to say about an effective energy policy in the UK:

Nuclear power — which accounts for 17 per cent of the world’s electricity supply — has the safest record of any major form of energy production. The radiation from a nuclear power station is less than that from a large hospital (and there are fewer superbugs, too). China, Finland, France, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and the US, among others, acknowledge the value of nuclear power for their future. China is planning to build no fewer than 40 nuclear power plants by 2020, while Sweden and France are designing politically enlightened policies for the storage of nuclear waste. Moreover, as Sir David King, the Chief Scientific Adviser, has argued, we must encourage long-term — that’s a 40 to 50-year timeframe — research into nuclear fusion.

In addition, we have to continue to support the efficient use of fossil fuels. On conservative estimates, there are 350 to 500 years of coal reserves in the world, and, with modern technologies, such as gasification, coal is on an exciting road to clean energy.

We must be open about the limitations of “renewables”, including both intermittency of supply and their environmental downsides. Large-scale hydroelectric power necessitates the re-settlement of people, interrupts fish migration and causes loss of habitat. Micro-scale hydroelectric systems become blocked and are able to make only a marginal contribution. Tidal barrages disrupt complex ecosystems. Wind farms kill bird and bat species and despoil rare wilderness.

If the various industrialized nations would push for such energy policies instead of the budget-busting conservation schemes that provide little or no benefit and generally take up/ruin the countryside. I guess this concept is catching on and in the University at that. Maybe he's a rare bird but I think that a silent majority in these nations are for such a policy.