Click to get your own widget

Friday, June 23, 2006


An article in the Scotsman based on the Royal Society of Edinburgh report which, while carefully worded as to the need for "balanced" power policy makes it clear that if we don't go nuclear the lights will go out. A balance of power sources basicaly means we rely on nuclear, coal & gas to produce baselaod power so that politicians will be free to spend money on favoured windmills without having to worry about what they produce.
Report by Royal Society of Edinburgh warns of power 'rationing' Crisis due to station closures, economic growth and increase in households Without significant investment 'surplus capacity' gone by 2015
Interesting what the politicians say & who seems to have said nothing.
Alec Johnstone, the Conservative Party energy spokesman, said: "This is another example of how policy can disadvantage the most vulnerable. The current hang-up with insisting such a large percentage of energy supply comes from renewables is just not acceptable if it means people will be denied access to power supplies.

"Ministers have to realise [this will] not only cause consumers difficulties but also cause real problems for the economy in terms of ensuring people have a job."

But the Green Party and the SNP accused the RSE of looking through "nuclear-tinted spectacles" at the issue.

Mike Weir, the SNP energy spokesman, said: "We are a considerable net exporter of energy. However, in the longer term we need to look towards other energy sources, whether that is from our coal
That it is good news, rather than merely natural that the Tories support nuclear, even without using the word, shows how much David Cameron has lowered expectations. Nonetheless it is good news. The SNP remark is just silly but why was there no equal amount of idiocy from Nicol Stephen of the SLD?
Elsewhere in the same issue is an item pushing the global warming scare but again honest reporting has required the actually mention that the warming is only 0.6C over the last century though it is buried well below the headline.
Scientists believe world is at its hottest for 2,000 yearsRUSSELL JACKSON

THE world is hotter than it has been for four centuries - and probably the hottest for 2,000 years - the United States' most prestigious scientific organisation said yesterday.

In a report to the US Congress, the National Academy of Sciences reported that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

A panel of top climate scientists told politicians that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming".

Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1F during the 20th century.

I commented
Here we see a slant on a slant. The headline does not entirely reflect the story. "Last 400 years & potentially the last several millenia" is not quite the same as definitely saying 2,000 years. 400 years ago was the end of the medieval warming period when Vikings settled Greenland & grapes grew in York so saying this is nothing new. Dr Mann's Hockeystick theory that the warming graph is about to (or was in 1999) take off spectacularly (& denied the existence of the medieval warming) has been shown to be based on mathematics which may politely be refered to as thoroughly disproven. The NAS may feel required to sound on message regarding catastrophic global warming, when all the politicians have formed a "consensus" but even so they still say that throughout the 20thC total warming was only 1F (0.6C) which is well within historic variability & isn't any sort of catastrophe..

This is a good article with some global warming solutions.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.