Vox Polis

Recently there has been much discussion and speculation about how the New Labour government is going to address our short term power needs caused by the decommissioning of our nuclear power plants and increasing demand. I refer to the short term because it is widely believed that all our power requirements will soon be solved by the creation of fusion power. Or much more likely we will mange to annihilate ourselves through one of the many terrifying ways frequently discussed in the mass media (my money’s on Bird Flu), and therefore have no energy needs.

Leaving Armageddon aside for the time being, the UK’s (and indeed the World’s) growing power needs has caused a dilemma. Not only do all the energy production alternatives have a number of externalities and disadvantages, but we must also equate their use with our agenda to tackle climate change. Nuclear power; the elite’s favourite choice, uses more energy in its creation, maintenance and decommission of power plants than it will ever produce in its 20-30 year life span (ok it’s not quite this bad, but it’s not that good either). No one wants to live anywhere near them, even though positioning Nuclear power plants near densely populated areas is the most efficient way to use them (they can also heat the city). Many people believe that the nuclear power plant will explode (images of the 3 mile island and Chernobyl incidents enters the mind) either due to human error or terrorist attacks.

Fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas) burning power stations, of course, offer no alternative because of carbon emissions. Some have proclaimed that Carbon Collection and Storage (CCS) is the great saviour of this industry (well at least until fossil fuels run out). Leaving aside the difficulties of collecting carbon, CCS is much like a kid who on being told to tidy his room, gathers everything up from the floor and throws it in a cupboard. This is fine until he opens the cupboard and it all falls out again. CCS is a reductionist policy favouring the status quo.

So what is to be done? How can we equate safety, efficiency and climate change?

I believe that the solution is micro and community generation. Of course, this policy is courageous and radical; qualities rarely found in government policies. The government should either form a nationalised wind turbine industry, or contract out to private firms, to facilitate the building of wind turbines on every house in the UK where it is efficient to do so. A wind turbine may not cover the house’s complete electricity needs (providing aproximately a 1/4) but it will reduce our reliance on other sources. When we are not at home (many of us work during the day) surplus energy can be sold back to the national grid. This scheme would be cheaper than building, maintaining and decommissioning a nuclear power plant. We are frequently being told that we live in the windiest place in Europe. It’s about time we utilised this natural resource to its full potential.

Why this won’t happen?

First of all, micro generation does not have the legitimacy of other proven technologies and it would require a great risk by a risk adverse, conservative government for this scheme to go forward. However all power technologies were once unproven and it is risk taking that ensures that they have the opportunity to be proven workable. Secondly, the power of nimbyism and Daily Mailism. Some people will fight any plan for wind turbines to be placed any where they could see it. They will proclaim them eye sores, even though they already have a television Ariel, satellite dish and chimney sticking from their roofs. Thirdly, is the power of the electricity industry. Micro and community generation is a threat to the established network of profitable companies that mine/ drill, burn and build the power stations that currently litter our landscape. Their lobbying skills and links with government is the most difficult obstacle to overcome because their very existence is challenged by this idea. But it is not as if this will damage the economy because of what Schumpeter called “creative destruction;” the loss of one industry will be replace by a new one.

It is only by looking for radical solutions that we will be able to solve radical problems. Micro and community power development will go a substantial way to help us face the climate change problems and not rely on quickly diminishing fossil fuels.

This entry was posted on Friday, December 9th, 2005 at 4:37 pm and is filed under Politics, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.