A joint report "Renewable Energy Vision or Mirage" published the Adam Smith Research Trust and Scientific-Alliance in summary concludes:
...In light of this assessment, we conclude that taxpayers’ money would be far better spent on measures to increase energy efficiency, plus investment in proven nuclear and gas generating capacity to provide energy security as many of the UK’s coal-fired stations – and nearly all existing nuclear reactors – are decommissioned over the coming decade.
You can download the full report from the Adam Smith Website see Reports.
However, the above review has been criticised by some, and the below is a press release from WWF Scotland
Responding to a report out today (Monday [12 December 2011]) ‘Renewable Energy: Vision or Mirage’ by the Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance, Dr Richard Dixon, Director of WWF Scotland said:
"This report comprises a selection of tired and unconvincing myths about renewables and is a distraction from our fight to reduce carbon emissions. The report's attacks on renewables just don’t stack up, more renewables really do mean less fossil fuels burnt and less carbon emitted. WWF research shows how 100 per cent of global energy needs can be met from renewables by 2050 and Scotland is already aiming for a perfectly achievable 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2020.
"At the UK level, our Positive Energy report shows that we can have well over 60 per cent of renewables in the UK by 2030 in a way that is secure and affordable and could generate great benefits to the economy.
"Scientific Alliance are a well known front for anti-environment, pro-nuclear and climate-sceptic views. They were set up by a PR company and a quarry millionaire who didn’t want to pay environmental taxes. They are a right-wing think-tank that isn’t very good at thinking and this report is destined to go the way of all the other biased tosh they have produced over the years."
You can see the full press release at WWF Scotland which includes additional information.
...In light of this assessment, we conclude that taxpayers’ money would be far better spent on measures to increase energy efficiency, plus investment in proven nuclear and gas generating capacity to provide energy security as many of the UK’s coal-fired stations – and nearly all existing nuclear reactors – are decommissioned over the coming decade.
You can download the full report from the Adam Smith Website see Reports.
However, the above review has been criticised by some, and the below is a press release from WWF Scotland
Responding to a report out today (Monday [12 December 2011]) ‘Renewable Energy: Vision or Mirage’ by the Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance, Dr Richard Dixon, Director of WWF Scotland said:
"This report comprises a selection of tired and unconvincing myths about renewables and is a distraction from our fight to reduce carbon emissions. The report's attacks on renewables just don’t stack up, more renewables really do mean less fossil fuels burnt and less carbon emitted. WWF research shows how 100 per cent of global energy needs can be met from renewables by 2050 and Scotland is already aiming for a perfectly achievable 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2020.
"At the UK level, our Positive Energy report shows that we can have well over 60 per cent of renewables in the UK by 2030 in a way that is secure and affordable and could generate great benefits to the economy.
"Scientific Alliance are a well known front for anti-environment, pro-nuclear and climate-sceptic views. They were set up by a PR company and a quarry millionaire who didn’t want to pay environmental taxes. They are a right-wing think-tank that isn’t very good at thinking and this report is destined to go the way of all the other biased tosh they have produced over the years."
You can see the full press release at WWF Scotland which includes additional information.
1 comment:
A quote from the Telegraph the other day:-
"How’s this for timing? This week the Office for Nuclear Regulation gave interim approval for the design of the first two nuclear reactors due to be built in Britain for two decades. And the very same day, Areva – the state-owned French firm that developed them – announced that it was facing a $2.1 billion loss this year, incurred partly by problems with its reactors in Finland and France.
Areva’s first European Pressurised Reactor – of which it plans to build two with the electricity generator EDF at Hinckley Point, Somerset – is now five years behind schedule at Olkiluoto on the Finnish coast and is costing an extra two billion euros. The second – which it is constructing with EDF at Flamanville, Normandy – has been delayed by two years, while its cost has almost doubled. Mind you, Areva has also taken a big hit from an unfortunate purchase of a uranium mining firm, and is suffering badly from the backwash of the Fukushima disaster as Germany, Switzerland and Italy have gone cold on the atom. Things even look rather tricky in France, the pre-eminent nuclear state, where Francois Hollande, the Socialist presidential candidate, has agreed with the Greens to shut 24 reactors if he gains power.
Britain is increasingly looking like a rare bright spot. But EDF has already put back the start date of the first Somerset reactor and has warned that poor union-management relations on the construction side threaten to raise costs. Will things get critical here too?
Post a Comment