New Severn Estuary nuclear plant gets go-ahead (From South Wales Argus)

Infinitely better than windmills.

You can just hear Paul Flynn later today, when his mind comes off the budget, telling us how over-subsidized the nuclear industry is.

Well, wind mills are even more so.

If there is a genuine intention to curtail emissions of carbon dioxide in connection with climate change mitigation, then there are better ways of doing so than by spending the money available on on-shore wind.

Off-shore wind, for a start, is better.

I am talking here about the real financial costs to Society; not the costs determined by artificially loaded household electricity bills to pay for subsidies elsewhere.

On-shore wind is the reverse-Robin Hood strategy. That is, you rob the poor to benefit the rich.

Ordinary peoples' electricity bills are artificially loaded to raise the necessary revenues so that the landowners and wealthy investors can receive up to three times as much money for each unit of electricity generated than would be the case by traditional means.

Replacing coal-fired power stations with gas-fired power stations is a really significant step in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and many of our coal-fired power stations are having to be replaced anyway for other reasons, such as their age and pollution outputs. (This is referring to undesirable emissions other than greenhouse gases).

If Society has the determination to spend certain sums of money on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of electricity generated, then let us make sure that that money is spent on the best pound-for-pound schemes able to achieve this. On-shore wind turbine technology certainly is not one of them.

Spend some of the money saved from not wasting it on on-shore wind, on boosting promising renewable projects, like tidal stream and lagoon technologies, but in the meantime go for gas.

If you don't like nuclear, don't use the argument that it is highly subsidized without decrying the even worse immoral subsidies for on-shore wind.

Nuclear is perceived as being either the best solution to climate-friendly power generation or as a dangerous and dirty means of doing so, depending on your point of view. However, when it is working it works meaningfully; onshore wind is a joke.


It is ironic that John Sauven of Greenpeace is concerned that "Hinkley Point C would lock consumers into higher energy bills, through a strike price which he said was expected to be double the current price of electricity".

That is exactly what has already happened with on-shore wind and PV solar. Consumers are not only paying through the nose for the high subsidy loadings on their electricity bills now, but will be doing so for up to twenty five years, come what may, because the contracts associated with these arrangements are designed to last that long.

By his own voice, John Sauven is admitting how high current costs for wind are. He speaks of nuclear being expensive at the outset, indeed "double the current price of electricity" as he puts it.

John Sauven then speaks of the price of off-shore wind coming down in price. (Note, not on-shore wind, which, with the associated costly grid connectors and the immoral subsidies paid to landowners and investors, is even more expensive de facto).

John Sauven says that "the price of offshore wind will drop so much it will be on par with nuclear by 2020 "

If the price of off-shore wind is only going to come down to the price of nuclear, (remember, that's double the current price of electricity), even after another seven years, by 2020, then that is very expensive off-shore produced electricity, if you ask me.

His logic seems to be up the shute!

Nuclear is going to lock us in to a high price, double the current price of electricity, he says.

Even after seven years the price of the cheapest form of wind is only going to come down to the same price as nuclear, he says.

So, why in terms of the price argument, is "there is no rationale for allowing Hinkley C to proceed"?

Always amazes me that some people would rather risk contaminating themselves than their view. Although personally, I've always thought the windmills are rather impressive dotted around the landscape. I actually like them. I certainly prefer them to the risk of radioactive pr toxic contamination.

Here's a novel idea - instead of increasing your power supply, why don't you slash the consumption requirements by making solar panels mandatory on every property.