|
Written by Peter Wilson
|
|
Wednesday, 15 December 2004 |
Can
Edward Griffiths-Jones explain how Reading University detached its
electricity supply from the national grid? Unless it did, the claim to
be drawing 100% from green sources under its new contract is false, and
I should have thought obviously so. In fact, of course, the university
must still be using the general mix, to which the "green" contribution
is no more than a few percent, and the supposed reduction in ecological
footprint is illusory.
What Mr Griffiths-Jones presumably means
is that the university is paying for 100% green energy, and even that
is an illusion since the push for renewables is heavily subsidised,
apparently to the tune of about 5p per unit, by other sources through
the renewables obligation and the climate change levy. This absurdly
penalises even the 20% of nuclear generation which is the least
threatening to the climate amongst all the major suppliers, and from
modern stations one of the cheapest even allowing for decommissioning
and waste disposal.
Hydroelectricity in Britain is close to its practical limit, while the
unreliability of wind power prevents the grid system from tolerating
more than about 20% of such capacity with the need for fossil-fired
backup. Accordingly, increasing the nuclear contribution offers the
only effective means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions according to
the government's declared ambitions; yet despite its denials, that same
government shows itself by its actions to be intent on dismantling the
nuclear industry. It evidently finds pseudo-environmentalist pressure
more compelling than the logic of the situation, and we can only hope
that a measure of common sense may break in after the general election.
Peter Wilson
Seascale, Cumbria |
