"...a commitment by the government to unilaterally underpin the price of carbon, ensuring that nuclear competes better"

The real agenda behind this, besides the obvious hedge fund trading opportunities, is that it will be a direct subsidy to nuclear power.

All the hidden costs of nuclear power ignored by the so-called "free" market.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Mah presudent sez thet nukular pawr is gud so ah am supportin' et a hunderd persen'.  Eff George Bush sez it's gud then we shud awl see the truth ev the matter.

Shu pas a vende.

Unfortunately there is not corporate kleptocracy (state owned nuclear utilities in the case of UK and France?) to advocate for it.  Taxpayer bailout of nuclear industry losses, where is the accountability for sound decisionmaking here?

Production of distributed renewable energy still wallows in the backwater of energy priorities.  Could not a state-owned utility realize the profit from such investments if it makes the shift?  The national security (reduced risk of accident, unit failure or attack) benefits of distributed energy production are so high, if they are only able to be truly quantified and understood by public decision makers.

How does the UK plan to dispose of its nuke waste?   Oh, I see-- in a yet-to-be sited facility. Or will it simply be stored indefinitely in barrels in unmarked warehouses?  "Out of sight, out of mind," has worked for the USA the last 65 years.  Keep it long enough and the fools who made the decisions will all be dead by the time impacts are noticed.   The concept of half-life or long-delayed consequences, does not seem to register in short term political minds.

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

People are so desperate to continue the current lifestyle, they'll do anything. It's going to happen on this side of the pond, too.

Presenting nuclear as the best option for the U.K. seems to require pretty healthy doses of both wishful thinking and faith in hope over experience.

Sure, I mean, France is what...only 80 percent nuclear?   And, it's one country that has already met and exceeded it's Kyoto goals of cutting CO2 by half!   I mean, why would anyone want to follow a country that does everything that the Greens have been whining about for two decades?!

Restore the Kuomintang!

Sure, I mean, France is what...only 80 percent nuclear?   And, it's one country that has already met and exceeded it's Kyoto goals of cutting CO2 by half!   I mean, why would anyone want to follow a country that does everything that the Greens have been whining about for two decades?!

jabailo there are some special things ya need to know 'bout France.  

One-it's only slightly larger than New England.

Two-it takes 59 nuclear power plants to provide 80% of that slightly larger than New England-sized country.

Given that the average French person uses less energy than the average American, and that there are only 'bout 65 million people in France (compared to America's 300+ million), and the fact that America has energy-consumptive industry, manufacturing, etc. than France...it would probably take many hundreds of new nuclear plants spread across the nation to provide enougn energy for everyone.

On the other hand, there's more then enough wind energy in the Dakotas alone to provide us with current energy needs...and that doesn't include wind energy in other states, solar, tidal, geothermal, landfill incineration, etc.

That's it alright.  Distributed renewable smart grid powering plugin hybrids, electric mass transit, and geo heat exchange heating/cooling.

The UK announced a huge offshore wind initiative awhile back.  What happened?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

What happened to the off-shore wind idea - its still sort of going, but like most things to do with energy policy in the UK, its too little, too late.

The people who run UK energy policy (politicians, senior civil servants and lobbyists) have consistantly backed big techno-fixes such as nuclear and central generation by gas/coal over energy efficiency, alternatives and renewables. Yes, they have proposed a tidal power project, but it will cost at least $24 billion dollars and will flood large amounts of unique wetlands and will change the hydrology of an area only recently flooded in heavy rain.  Another techno-fix.

A White paper of only a few years ago saying that nuclear was not needed was overturned last year by the lobbying of the nuclear industry and the fear that Putin would cut off supplies of gas.  Coal is also back in favour, with large subsidies for what is left of our coal industry, and Eon has just been given permission to contruct a very large, not very efficient and extremely carbon dirty coal fired power station.  Emails between the government and the company show that there was a request for the government not to ask to have carbon storage equipment fitted, and they happily obliged.  Since carbon capture is a technology which the government says its very hopeful about, you suspect that not everyone believes, or is willing to pay for, the hype.

Where they have funded renewables, it's been on a very small scale, and for very limited periods.  Seemingly, its enough for the departments involved to just go through the motions.  When they did go for windpower, there was seemingly no attempt for tie it in with other technologies, and  many windfarms got held up by objections, often fanned by nuclear-backed anti-wind groups.

The governments stance on energy efficiency and small-scale generation has been lamentable, with programmes suddenly being cut, little money in the first place, and little information on how to claim for grants.  Our housing stock is the least efficient in Europe, and current regulations (which will not be raised for the building industry for some years), are so low, that a recent survey showed that Tudor, and then Victorian houses were the most efficient form of construction.  Modern construction came some way down the list.

 Local councils have started using their local powers to try to get developers to incorporate at least 10% of renewable capacity on site for each developent (the Merton rule), a rule developed because of the vacuum at central government level.  The building industry came very close to having them scrapped entirely last year through lobbying ministers.

The government has also said that it wants zero-carbon towns to be built - but no one can actually say what 'zero-carbon' will actually mean.

In short, energy policy is a mess, consistantly giving in to special interests, having unreasoned faith in technology and mega-projects, whatever their previous failures.  Peak Oil is simply not spoken of, and climate change is something which they would like to do something about, but not in a way which would annoy anyone.  

Lets just say it isn't like Sweden...