The real solution to climate change

Posted by bex — 3 August 2007 at 4:27pm - Comments

We recently launched a new film about the real solution to climate change (clue: it's not nuclear power - and the film explains exactly why not). The film's been sent to every MP in the country and is making its way around the interweb nicely. But we think its message - that the UK needs a new, and sane, energy system now - is crucial and we want to push it out further. So we've produced this new trailer.

There are plenty of ways you can help us get the word out: write to your MP asking them to watch the film; embed the film or the trailer on your website, blog or MySpace page; send it to a friend; Hugg it, Digg it or add it to your StumbleUpon favourites.

Climate change is happening. We know exactly what needs to be done to stop it. The technologies already exist. Let's do it.

Article tagged as: beer, CHP, climate change, multimedia, nuclear power, renewable energy, solutions, tidal power, videos, wave power, wind power
Comments Commenting is now closed

Where to begin? Perhaps by saying I don't really understand why you're comparing nuclear power and coal in terms of pollution and fatalities - we're not arguing for new coal-powered stations, but against them. And 'old technology' doesn't matter a fig if you build your plant on top of a geological fault...

You're right that we need a rapid transition to different energy sources but it won't be to nuclear. Assuming the government manages to force through its plan for new nuclear power stations, and assuming they're built on time with no delays (a rarity in the nuclear industry), the first one won't be generating until 2017, and the full fleet won't be ready until 2025-2030. Those are industry estimates, so for at least 10 years nuclear power will be contributing nothing to our emission cutbacks. If we have to wait for nuclear to be our 'safety net' before we can deploy renewables and CHP, we're screwed.

And nuclear power is not something that magically appears when you turn a reactor on - it needs fuel, and the last time I checked the UK didn't have rich seams of uranium deposits lying around. So we'd still rely on supplies from other countries in exactly the same way we do for gas. Mining for uranium itself is also hazardous work.

The whole point of CHP is that they are small and local, so every town should have one - more than one, in fact. Combining heat and power production means you use much less fuel, generating less emissions. We'll need to use natural gas initially but later it can come from biogas from plant waste or compost, removing our reliance on dwindling reserves.

The technology for renewables and CHP exists now, what's missing is the will to implement it. But then if we were much more efficient with our energy, we wouldn't need so much of it in the first place...

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 7 August 2007 at 2:27pm

I think a lot of the projections you're basing your arguments on are themselves based on the assumption that we will use fossil fuels until they run out. What we're saying is that we need to begin switching now, becoming less and less reliant on imports of gas and other fuels as time goes on. Maybe we'll never be totally self-sufficient, but we can certainly minimise that dependence.

Governments will want to keep the lights on, but devolving power generation so it happens locally, even at an individual level with rooftop solar panels and the like, will allow our government to be much more flexible in how it achieves that. and we already produce vast quantities of biomass - all that food waste we produce (much of which goes to landfill, despite increased composting) is perfect.

The energy is there, we need to be more creative and efficient about how we access it.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 8 August 2007 at 5:37pm

Where to begin? Perhaps by saying I don't really understand why you're comparing nuclear power and coal in terms of pollution and fatalities - we're not arguing for new coal-powered stations, but against them. And 'old technology' doesn't matter a fig if you build your plant on top of a geological fault... You're right that we need a rapid transition to different energy sources but it won't be to nuclear. Assuming the government manages to force through its plan for new nuclear power stations, and assuming they're built on time with no delays (a rarity in the nuclear industry), the first one won't be generating until 2017, and the full fleet won't be ready until 2025-2030. Those are industry estimates, so for at least 10 years nuclear power will be contributing nothing to our emission cutbacks. If we have to wait for nuclear to be our 'safety net' before we can deploy renewables and CHP, we're screwed. And nuclear power is not something that magically appears when you turn a reactor on - it needs fuel, and the last time I checked the UK didn't have rich seams of uranium deposits lying around. So we'd still rely on supplies from other countries in exactly the same way we do for gas. Mining for uranium itself is also hazardous work. The whole point of CHP is that they are small and local, so every town should have one - more than one, in fact. Combining heat and power production means you use much less fuel, generating less emissions. We'll need to use natural gas initially but later it can come from biogas from plant waste or compost, removing our reliance on dwindling reserves. The technology for renewables and CHP exists now, what's missing is the will to implement it. But then if we were much more efficient with our energy, we wouldn't need so much of it in the first place... web editor gpuk

By jamie - 7 August 2007 at 2:27pm

I think a lot of the projections you're basing your arguments on are themselves based on the assumption that we will use fossil fuels until they run out. What we're saying is that we need to begin switching now, becoming less and less reliant on imports of gas and other fuels as time goes on. Maybe we'll never be totally self-sufficient, but we can certainly minimise that dependence. Governments will want to keep the lights on, but devolving power generation so it happens locally, even at an individual level with rooftop solar panels and the like, will allow our government to be much more flexible in how it achieves that. and we already produce vast quantities of biomass - all that food waste we produce (much of which goes to landfill, despite increased composting) is perfect. The energy is there, we need to be more creative and efficient about how we access it. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 8 August 2007 at 5:37pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK