tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post4072561535229638509..comments2024-03-26T09:38:39.888+00:00Comments on Borthlas: Who to believeJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-81546004933494431632011-05-03T08:59:03.538+01:002011-05-03T08:59:03.538+01:00Adam,
"1. 2050 is some time away. Could ther...Adam,<br /><br /><i>"1. 2050 is some time away. Could there be a need for nuclear to meet Wales's energy needs between the end of Wylfa B's construction and then?"</i><br /><br />Not according to the Welsh Government's own strategy, as I read it. But a new nuclear plant is at least 7 years away, and more likely 10. If I were looking for a medium term option to fill a potential gap whilst even longer term plans are developed, I wouldn't be looking to nuclear. I'd accelerate the progress on developing renewables instead to avoid the 'gap' occurring.<br /><br /><i>"2. The commitment states that "the rest [approximately 18%] [will come] from sustainable biomass and other sources.” Could this not include nuclear, which is after all low-carbon?"</i><br /><br />Yes, it could, although the amount of electricity produced by a nuclear plant compared to the remaining percentage of Wales' needs looks like a sledgehammer approach to me; the 'spare' capacity would be enormous. I had taken the remainder to be things like electricity from waste, hydro-electric, micro-generation - all of which form part of the Welsh Government's energy route map.<br /><br /><i>"3. Could it be that there is a goal of energy exportation here, in which case there could be a role for nuclear energy generation?"</i><br /><br />I think that would have to be at the heart of it. Nuclear energy makes sense in the context of the government's energy route map only if it is producing electricity to meet needs outside Wales. It would enable the Labour Party to reconcile its position by saying something like, <i>"we agree that Wales has no need of a new nuclear plant, but we support building one at Wylfa to serve the wider needs of the UK."</i> (It would sound odd coming from a nationalist though, unless there was a means for Wales to charge for surplus electricity.)<br /><br />There is an alternative question to be asked here though. Clearly - as I'm sure you'd expect - I've looked at this from a Welsh perspective, and from that perspective, we don't need nuclear. But if we look at it from a UK perspective, does the UK need nuclear, or could the UK follow a similar route map to Wales? I'd argue that it could follow a similar renewables-based route if the political will were there. I suspect, though, that the first question you raised - about a potential 'gap' in the short term might be more relevant in a UK context - but treating the nuclear option as a short-term gap filler raises the same timescale problems.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-81110487305923318932011-05-02T14:51:28.588+01:002011-05-02T14:51:28.588+01:00A couple of points about the Labour manifesto stat...A couple of points about the Labour manifesto statement:<br /><br />1. 2050 is some time away. Could there be a need for nuclear to meet Wales's energy needs between the end of Wylfa B's construction and then?<br />2. The commitment states that "the rest [approximately 18%] [will come] from sustainable biomass and other sources.” Could this not include nuclear, which is after all low-carbon?<br />3. Could it be that there is a goal of energy exportation here, in which case there could be a role for nuclear energy generation?Adam Higgitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08404979957698536334noreply@blogger.com