Nuclear Is Cheapest “Low Carbon” Alternative

Hey, climate alarmists, you always say we should listen to the experts

Nuclear power will remain the cheapest way for the UK to grow its low-carbon energy supply for at least a decade, according to government advisers.

They’re going to need it, since the cold winters (caused by ‘climate change’, due to someone not taking the train, of course) are using up coal plant’s carbon credits at a high rate.

But renewables should provide 30-45% of the nation’s energy by 2030, says the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

Its new report suggests ministers may want to temper ambitions for offshore wind, which is still fairly expensive.

And kills birds and bugs. You alarmists should be against it, right?

“People argue that offshore wind is very expensive – and it’s true, it is more expensive at the moment than some other technologies, so nuclear at the moment looks like the lowest cost low-carbon option,” said CCC chief executive David Kennedy.

“But we can expect significant cost reductions over the next two decades across a range of technologies, whether wind, marine or solar, and that’s why these technologies are promising.”

Hasn’t happened over the past 3 decades, why will it change now? Not that I don’t want these cleaner (and not talking about CO2) technologies to become as cheap as gas, coal, and nuclear, but, we keep hearing about how they will become cheaper, and haven’t yet.

Wind could replace nuclear as the cheapest option within about 15-20 years, he indicated

Except when it is really cold and the turbines freeze. Or the wind isn’t blowing.

By 2030, the cost of using these low-carbon technologies rather than fossil fuels would put about £50 onto the average household’s energy bill

Wait, I thought it was going to get cheaper? Oh, sorry, they meant cheaper than it is now, not cheaper than current technologies.

Environmental groups have given the report a mixed reception.

“It’s great that the committee has recognised the huge role renewable energy could and should be playing in taking Britain towards a clean, prosperous future – and is right to call for a dramatic increase in investment to make this happen,” said Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns with Friends of the Earth.

“But nuclear power can’t be part of the answer – our analysis shows it will divert vital money and effort away from developing renewable energy, and the jobs and industries it could bring to the UK.

In the meantime, the first people to complain about rolling blackouts and freezing because the carbon credits for the power plant ran out will be the same enviroweenies.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Nuclear Is Cheapest “Low Carbon” Alternative”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    Hasn’t happened over the past 3 decades, why will it change now?

    I’d like to point out something here, Teach. You are essentially correct, but you can go a lot further back than “the past 3 decades” to show the failure of these technologies.

    The first wind turbine to produce electrical power was in 1879. The first large wind turbine to produce power, 1888.

    First marine / wave power generator was in 1910.

    Solar power was investigated by Albert Einstein in the 1930’s.

    (And just as a throw-in, the first electric cars were in the early 1900’s.)

    The ideas and concepts of “renewable energy,” (which is a misnomer in and of itself) has been around a lot longer than people think. People believe this is “new” technology that needs to be researched and perfected when in fact, the technology for wind and wave power generation has been around for over a century and solar power for 80 years.

    In all that time, the driving force behind the failure of these systems is cost and scale.

    It is an issue that even now, does not seem to be able to conquered, but people still want more money to throw down the well.

  2. captainfish says:

    Exactly right, gitarcarver. If they were going to get cheaper and wider-scale usage, they would have. They’ve only gone from smidgen-usage to bare-usage.

    And that is all “renewable” sources combined.

    Yeah, gitarcarver, love that term “renewable”. When you can create a windmill out of wind and a solar panel out of water and sun, without the use of rare-earth minerals and a toxic production method… then it will be “renewable”.

    also…
    Quote:
    [Wind could replace nuclear as the cheapest option within about 15-20 years, he indicated]

    Except when it is really cold and the turbines freeze. Or the wind isn’t blowing.

    …… and don’t forget when the wind DOES blow. Don’t they turn off the windmills when the wind blows like more than 30mph?

  3. Excellent points, GT. Of course, remember, globull warming only started in the last 30 years, so in Alarmist World, we only really started looking at these sources during that time period, because mankind is evil something something.

    Yup, they do turn them off, Captain, because the “extreme wind caused by climate change” can damage the ability to create power.

    We should make all the alarmists live in communities that get at least 80% of their power from these alternative sources, then watch the hilarity when they rarely have power.

    One day it will work. Till then, it’s pie in the sky.

  4. […] Nuclear Is Cheapest “Low Carbon” Alternative In the meantime, the first people to complain about rolling blackouts and freezing because the carbon credits for the power plant ran out will be the same enviroweenies. […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 9925 access attempts in the last 7 days.