Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Crocodile Tears or Just Plain Stupid?

The Association for Conservation of Energy are worthy fellows, and have just published a detailed and devastating exposé of DECC's blatant manipulation of data to advance the case for building new nuclear power plants.

They are outraged ! "A corruption of governance", they fume. "The figures have been fiddled ... the Coalition Government’s decision to continue supporting new nuclear power was not based on its own evidence ... Why has the Government wasted time, effort and money on its deliberative discussion on the various pathways to 2050, when in fact the decision to use nuclear power has already been made?"

So much, so Huhne. Why, then, do the worthy ACE then prostrate themselves at the feet of this corrupter of governance thus ?

"This Association deeply regrets the resignation of the Rt Hon Chris Huhne. We pay tribute to the quite remarkable leadership he has shown during his 20 months in office. We are confident that his successor will seek to build upon the remarkable legacy he has left, and will seek to work equally closely with him towards achieving the goals for which Chris Huhne was striving"

Is this what we call cognitive dissonance ? Grow up, ACE, the man's a complete **** !

ND

16 comments:

Malcolm Tucker said...

Crocodile Tears or Just Plain Stupid?

The second one.

Budgie said...

If the figures for Nuclear have been "fiddled" to make them acceptable, what does that say about the figures for Huhne's favourite, Windmills?

Nick Drew said...

Budgie - I was waiting for that ! yes you are of course entirely correct

worth having a read, that ACE document

Blue Eyes said...

I don't think we should be entirely surprised at "fiddling". Wasn't global warming basically invented to provide the justification for uneconomic nuclear investment?

It's only since competition for uneconomic investment intensified thanks to windmills and solar that any fiddling has been suggested!

Budgie said...

No, BE, the CAGW zealots do not like Nuclear (remember "Nuclear, No thanks"?) any more than Coal or Gas.

Nor could CAGW provide "justification for uneconomic nuclear investment" anyway, since the Nuclear we have was built before CAGW.

Moreover, independent costings show Nuclear has overall costs comparable to modern Coal.

hovis said...

Moreover, independent costings show Nuclear has overall costs comparable to modern Coal.

Are you sure? Does that include the implicit government subsidy for decommisioning and long term dead reactors?

Blue Eyes said...

Budgie, global warming was invented in the 1970s/1980s when the previous government assertion that eventually nuclear power would be too cheap to bother metering was beginning to be debunked. The nuclear lobby and the anti-miners lobby personified in Mrs Thatcher used global warming to attempt to justify further investment in nuclear power. Just because some nuclear stations had already been built by that point doesn't invalid the argument.

If you think that there is a homogeneous group of green ultras who are the only people who use global warming as a political tool then you are - in my humble opinion - casting your net too narrowly.

The relative costs of coal and nuclear today are utterly irrelevant in trying to decide what was happening thirty years ago, with respect.

hovis said...

This comment isnt aimed at budgie but a general point that BE made well.

I would agree that Global Warming (whether real or not) is here to stay. It is simply too convenient and useful for politians and corporate interests to let go of. Indeed in many cases Big Oil and Big Eco are one and the same. Thinking of them as necssarily opposed focusses on what they say not whta they do

Budgie said...

CAGW did not start, as a political issue, until at least the formation of the IPCC in 1988. Most politicians were not on board until a decade later. In the 1970s the climate was considered to be heading for cooling, or even an ice age, if anything.

Starting in 1953 (13) Nuclear plants were already connected by the time Thatcher came to power in 1979, and a further (3) were in build. Therefore they could not have been built either because of Thatcher or fear of CAGW.

Budgie said...

Hovis, I was careful to say "comparable" because the costings for all methods of electricity generation are contentious and depend on assumptions. I tend to follow the OECD views on costs and strategy, but not on their CAGW based views because I think CAGW is a hoax.

Budgie said...

ND, "detailed and devastating"? You cannot be serious.

It is one of the more dire politicised tracts it has been my misfortune to waste an hour of my life on.

Blue Eyes said...

I didn't say Thatcher was particularly successful in promoting new nuclear stations!

Blue Eyes said...

"It is one of the more dire politicised tracts it has been my misfortune to waste an hour of my life on."

Maybe ND thought you had too much time and energy on your hands.

Nick Drew said...

At odds again, Budgie: and tomorrow it's QT ... so much contention!

Nick Drew said...

Hovis, Budgie - I know you know this but 'modern coal' (of which I am a long-standing supporter) should not be thought of as including CCS. I'm pretty sure non-CCS high-efficiency coal beat nuclear on cost - and it's pretty good on security of supply. AND it reduces CO2 when replacing old coal - not that Budgie cares ...

Budgie said...

It is important to remember we have only four technologies that are current and work: (modern) Coal (not CCS); Oil; Nuclear; Gas. Build timescales mean this is as good as it gets for 2025. There are two others that look feasible for the future: Thorium Nuclear, and Shale Gas (& oil).

In the recent cold snap, Wind provided only 1% of its capacity on occasions. Wind literally cannot be relied upon. Neither can any of the other 'renewables'. Like commercial CCS, either the technology does not exist, or they are too costly, or they will only ever make only a small contribution. Or any combination.

The Ace/UnlockDemocracy piece looks to be written by a lawyer, not an engineer. Its favoured paths rely on technology that does not exist, or has been shown not to work (inc. unreliable).