Friday, September 19, 2008

Ian Fells, emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle, is a complete twat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Fells, beloved of the nuclear industry, who runs his own consulting company promoting nuclear power and was the subject of two articles in the Sunday Times on his cash-for-access lobbying activity, is lead author on a report that claims "security of [electricity] supply must take priority over everything including climate change". Combatting climate change, of course, requires the rapid move of our generating capacity away from carbon intensive technologies- something you just can't do with nuclear new builds that require at least a decade from conception to come on line. Professor Fells, in his capacity as an energy consultant (teensy weensy conflict of interest there, yesno?) feels nuclear is still a necessary component of our future generation capacity, despite the current competitive nature of renewable generation- a situation which is only going to slide further in favour of green technology as time passes.

So, he wants to put our food production as well as the homes, not to mention the lives of millions of people at risk because he doesn't believe that renewables can replace the generation capacity due to be retired next decade. Well, newsflash, motherfucker! If we haven't replaced almost all of our generation capacity with carbon-neutral systems by then all that will happen anyway, whether we run our cars on tar or not. The government is responsible for our security and dealing with threats to our way of life. It has failed dismally. Then cnuts like this come along and start demanding that we make it worse. Jeeeezus fuckbiscuit wanktwat!!

Apparently this guy is meant to be a "veteran energy policy analyst". Seems he hasn't read this or this or heard of this or seen this or this. Not so very veteran after all, hey? In fact for a veteran analyst he's suspiciously ignorant of the potential of renewables to power the continent, let alone the country.


Addition:

Reading this again, I think the point I'm trying to make is that twats like the above look at the predicted installations of renewables and see a huge gap between what climate science predicts as being necessary to limit global change to a 2 degree rise and what is likely to be installed (~12% of our electricity by 2020 is probably the likely result at current trends- I can't remember where I read that so don't quote me on it). They then use this as evidence that renewables aren't up to the job of saving us from ourselves and so nuclear, "clean coal", liquified gas, hydrogen, magic beans, etc. become essential to fill the shortfall. Why I am so hostile to people like this is because predictions like the 12% figure come from "business-as-usual" scenarios that don't consider the national scale mobilisations of resources that people like the Green New Deal posse advocate. This is what is needed. I don't propose for one second that "business-as-usual" would be successful or desirable. The curent system sucks in sooooo many ways. Can we not just replace all soap operas on TV with ecuational broadcasts on climate change science, the threat CC presents to our way of life and our civilisation and the ability of renewable technologies to save us from this dystopian future? The public would soon get the message- freedom to destroy your own way of life and your children's heritage is no freedom at all. There is another way.

"no one has the right to be stupid"
-Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment

2 comments:

  1. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that Fell's report comes out at the same time that the cabinet declares a 'need' for new coal and nuclear.

    What boils my piss is the line they're using that we need new coal and nuke to "fill the energy gap until renewables mature".

    This ignores that renewables are more mature than CCS and fast breeder reactors. Renewables are here now, nukes and ccs are barely off the drawing board.

    Grrr!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its a classic piece of policy fluff. "We need new nukes to save the world." The sad thing is that there's a lot of people who swallow this shit whole and then make their decision to vote based upon it and 'factoids' like it.

    To me the case for renewables is so strong that its criminal to invest in anything else. New nukes won't be on line for at least 10 years. Carbon capture is still in the lab! How Hutton can keep a straight face when he declares that Britain needs to invest in these technologies to combat climate change is a mystery.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.