Don’t be surprised at any lack of scientific knowledge in a general article. When I was technology correspondent on a national paper, one of the other journalists asked me how to work out a percentage given two numbers.
I had the same from 3rd years socal “science” students when they where writing up their final year project and believed it needed a “computer person” to do such calculations. They also did not care about what they wanted calculated and if it was meaningful.
This was one of the moments that removed what remaining respected I had for socal “science”.
I'd really like to read a piece about that kind of thing: I think there are lots of interventions too like foraging, shopping at farmers markets, getting an allotment etc that kind of feel good but almost by definition can't scale to a big enough fraction of the population to put a real dent in the problem. Feels a bit like buying indulgences somehow.
The first chart from Our World In Data is very striking. Nuclear power is both one of the safest and also one of the cleanest in terms of emissions, yet that isn’t the public perception, largely because of the association with nuclear weapons and with radiation. Nuclear could produce all our energy needs using a very small footprint of land. Nuclear waste containment and storage is a trivial challenge compared to the scale of waste management and hazards from other activities. Nuclear power doesn’t have to be associated with weapons grade materials, E.g. Thorium could be used as the power source instead of Uranium or Plutonium. The various green parties have a lot to answer for in terms of campaigning against arguably the cleanest source of energy.
I agree it's a marketing issue to some extent, though I think the cost and time overruns on things like Hinckley C (not all down to planning objections by any means) haven't helped. I think ideally we'd have smaller systems that were approved and deployable in say 5 years, but maybe that will come.
Yes obviously planning issues, cost over-runs and long construction times are an issue. Part of that problem is also legislative in that we demand very much higher safety margins for nuclear than for other forms of energy, even though some of those other forms cause harm on mass scale. It's very similar to transport where we demand that air travel and rail travel are judged to standards that are not applied to road transport, and thousands of deaths and serious injuries per year are tolerated as acceptable on our roads!
I never get any joy from reading people put others down. This article could have been written from a more dignified stance of what the UK is getting right not gloating and bashing others. What's not so fantastic about the UKs energy initiaves is, among others, the royal family deriving personal benefit from wind farms in Wales. Hinckley C, Bradwell B, and Sizewell C nuclear power stations are funded and owned by the French and Chinese. I think things are more complex than at first glance.
I agree about the folly of Germany's exit from nuclear - as I wrote in the book, it was one of two major errors in Merkel's time (the other being Russia/gas/energy policy)
Don’t be surprised at any lack of scientific knowledge in a general article. When I was technology correspondent on a national paper, one of the other journalists asked me how to work out a percentage given two numbers.
Ouch, that's not a cheerful thought! (Someone ought to write a book with some basic maths tips for people like that)
I had the same from 3rd years socal “science” students when they where writing up their final year project and believed it needed a “computer person” to do such calculations. They also did not care about what they wanted calculated and if it was meaningful.
This was one of the moments that removed what remaining respected I had for socal “science”.
Reminds me of people who somehow think a wood-burner is the environmental option for home heating.
I'd really like to read a piece about that kind of thing: I think there are lots of interventions too like foraging, shopping at farmers markets, getting an allotment etc that kind of feel good but almost by definition can't scale to a big enough fraction of the population to put a real dent in the problem. Feels a bit like buying indulgences somehow.
If only they would burn misshaped wood rather then buying nice looking logs ìn plastic bags….
I seem to recall that they import electricity from France - double standards!
Anyway lovely to read your articles. Thanks -they give me much reassurance and pleasure. Hope you too have a relaxing weekend.
Yes, and of course a lot of gas from Russia (even after Crimea, MH17 etc).
And thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
The first chart from Our World In Data is very striking. Nuclear power is both one of the safest and also one of the cleanest in terms of emissions, yet that isn’t the public perception, largely because of the association with nuclear weapons and with radiation. Nuclear could produce all our energy needs using a very small footprint of land. Nuclear waste containment and storage is a trivial challenge compared to the scale of waste management and hazards from other activities. Nuclear power doesn’t have to be associated with weapons grade materials, E.g. Thorium could be used as the power source instead of Uranium or Plutonium. The various green parties have a lot to answer for in terms of campaigning against arguably the cleanest source of energy.
I agree it's a marketing issue to some extent, though I think the cost and time overruns on things like Hinckley C (not all down to planning objections by any means) haven't helped. I think ideally we'd have smaller systems that were approved and deployable in say 5 years, but maybe that will come.
Yes obviously planning issues, cost over-runs and long construction times are an issue. Part of that problem is also legislative in that we demand very much higher safety margins for nuclear than for other forms of energy, even though some of those other forms cause harm on mass scale. It's very similar to transport where we demand that air travel and rail travel are judged to standards that are not applied to road transport, and thousands of deaths and serious injuries per year are tolerated as acceptable on our roads!
I never get any joy from reading people put others down. This article could have been written from a more dignified stance of what the UK is getting right not gloating and bashing others. What's not so fantastic about the UKs energy initiaves is, among others, the royal family deriving personal benefit from wind farms in Wales. Hinckley C, Bradwell B, and Sizewell C nuclear power stations are funded and owned by the French and Chinese. I think things are more complex than at first glance.
Thanks for letting me know.
While % of coal has indeed gone up since the shutdown of the reactors, the direction of travel is now sharply down. The figures from ISE don’t appear to align with Our World in Data’s sources for 2023, but I am pretty sure the former is reliable on this. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/public-electricity-generation-2023-renewable-energies-cover-the-majority-of-german-electricity-consumption-for-the-first-time.html#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20renewables%20accounted%20for,the%20socket)%20was%2057.1%20percent.
I agree about the folly of Germany's exit from nuclear - as I wrote in the book, it was one of two major errors in Merkel's time (the other being Russia/gas/energy policy)
I seem to recall that they import electricity from France - double standards!
Anyway lovely to read your articles. Thanks -they give me much reassurance and pleasure. Hope you too have a relaxing weekend.