David Cameron channels Gerry Anderson, is this our future?

rsz_screen_shot_2015-10-23_at_21307_pmFast track to 2065, life remains familiar in many ways, the English are still sophisticated, the Americans are still not to be trusted, and there is still a terrorist threat in the Middle East. Having just celebrated “Back-To-The-Future Day,” many 50 year-olds who grew up on the iconic Thunderbirds may be wondering if it’s a good idea to live to 100. David Cameron must have spent his youth watching East Enders or something else, or perhaps owns a secret island in the middle of the Pacific. In any case, he seems to be ignoring what is likely to be the consequences of a nuclear future, which is not pretty.

No doubt Britain needs to secure power for the future, and that will have to incorporate Nuclear in part, but the rhetoric coming out of our motherland is that it is the only power source for the future! Not only are they celebrating the onset of a 10-year build of a new 3.2GW power station at a cost of $US38 billion (that’s $US11900.00 per kilowatt of output), they are now saying that power prices in Britain are artificially low and should rise to fund the construction.

Now the cost of a new-build coal power station sits at about $4-5000.00 per kilowatt output, the fuel is dirty and it consumes volumes of other resources as well, nuclear is a close second. The other thing to consider is that this new power station, at Hinkley Point (remember Hinkley California) is supposed to power the north of England, a thousand miles away, needing at least two 800 KvDC cables to connect it to whatever load they dream up in this new supercharged region.

The guarantee of a purchase price of $198.00 per megawatt-hour would make anyone tip money into a 10-year, fully funded project, especially if it is fully guaranteed by the government. But what does this say about wind, solar and wave energy prospects?

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that those who govern us have absolutely no faith in renewables when it comes to the heavy lifting. Or does it mean that the development of renewables is being deliberately forsaken for the interests of higher powers?

Gerry Anderson‘s 2065 earth had nuclear powered everything and the disasters to match. What does this new powerhouse UK Northern Economy look like? And what does David Campbell plan to do with the other 12 nuclear plants he wants to build in the future?



With the sort of money being pledged to this new round of nukes in England we could probably build enough solar and hydrogen plants to power most of Britain without the inevitable Chernobyls and Fukushimas – disasters that just keep giving. If there is that much money to spend on energy, give it to us. We promise not to kill the earth with it!

Rob Campbell is CEO of Vulcan Energy

Comments

9 responses to “David Cameron channels Gerry Anderson, is this our future?”

  1. Mark Roest Avatar
    Mark Roest

    Let’s remember to discuss the two main reasons for governments (UK or US) to support nuclear power: nuclear weapons, and centralized control (and ownership) of critical resources such as electricity.

  2. onesecond Avatar
    onesecond

    The sad thing is that solar and storage already are cheaper per kWh than Hinkley C. It furthermore doesn’t have any of the nuclear drawbacks, like nuclear waste, the dependency of uran mined elswhere and the possibility of a catastrophy. So it is better in every conceivable way and still vested interests topple it. Disgusting.

    1. Jacob Avatar
      Jacob

      Or just build a bloody HVDC line from Iceland to Scotland. No need for nuclear reactors.

  3. david H Avatar

    Has anyone worked out how many hectares of land would be required in the UK to guarantee 3,200MWe 24/7 for 8000 hours per year from solar PV + storage?

    1. Jacob Avatar
      Jacob

      Solar panels are now 340 Watts per panel, instead of 250 Watts per panel.

    2. Catprog Avatar
      Catprog

      (((3200 MW) * (8000 hours)) / (26.2 kWh)) * (1 sqm) = 977.099237 km^2 (10% efficiency)

    3. arne-nl Avatar

      Since a combination of energy technologies works best, the 100% solar case is a thought experiment with little value in the real world. But anyhow, here it goes….

      A rough indication for free-field installations is 50 W of PV per square meter of land (due to the spacing between the rows of panels). 50 W of PV will generate about 50 kWh annually.

      UK electricity generation in 2014 was 335 TWh: 335 TWh/50 kWh = 7 billion m2 = 7000 km2.

      If you can put it partly on rooftops and assume solar power panels will increase in efficiency, probably in the 3000 sq km ballpark. If you assume other sources of electricity (wind/biomass), then it is probably 0 and the rooftops alone would be sufficient.

  4. phred01 Avatar
    phred01

    Chinese reactor? Chinese reactor technology is based on old Russian designs…….we know what happened in Chernobyl

  5. Miles Harding Avatar
    Miles Harding

    OK, so long as we also get Tracy Island, complete with 2060 building architecture and a runway with lay over palm trees.

    It seems to be consistent that right wing polIitics will sell their own children if there’s a quid in it. They have no sense of what it means to live in a small round rock circling a burning ball of hydrogen.
    David cameron is doing an excellent job of fumbling the future and it’s a good bet that he is also channeling our own ‘Terrible Tony’, causing him to lose perspective and confuse sustainability with an expensive stop-gap measure.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.