WEEKLY Q: Alternative Energy v Nuclear?
This week's question is bound to be a bit of a fire-starter. But it is a murky area that constantly baffles me, as I am sure it does many others.
Why will the UK build new Nuclear instead of investing in Alternative Energy?
Let's assume that without serious government support the required move to greater efficiency, lower energy consumption and renewables will not materialise. That would imply that Nuclear is the only way forward. Anything is better than coal right? James Lovelock would agree as he points out that we simply do not have time for alternatives.
On the other hand Nuclear takes ages to come online and feed into the grid. So has anyone done a study to examine what the state of renewables and the grid could be in the same amount of time it will take for new Nuclear to come online, assuming all the money spent by the government on New Nuclear were spent on renewables? And when I say spent by government I also assume they will have to clear up the future waste themselves as it appears they have to do with the current waste disposal costing £70bn.
I look forward to your responses.