Climate change : what now?
The problem and the potential consequences are all too clear. But which responses to climate change are likely to be most effective?
By Cathy Holding, December o2, 2009
             
      C
urrently, the government's immediate priority is security of energy supply in the short- to medium-term, which means that coal and nuclear are the main candidates for serious investment. Opinion is divided as to how wise this is. Different calculations produce different conclusions about economic and environmental viability ...

The continuing development of Carbon Capture and Storage technology may increase the acceptability of coal. But for now it seems reasonable to fear that lack of large-scale public investment in energy technologies other than nuclear and coal power may undermine other emissions-reduction policies...
             
            article full text                          
               



                         
     



                         
   

Comments by Tommaso Fronte.

                       
               



                         
      T
he list of climate change solutions could become very short as the security of energy supply may take precedence .
             
                                                                   
          Nuclear is in the short list and has a strong self sustaing effect; nobody would dare to write off an operating nuclear plant which generates a badly needed amount of energy and is the result of a huge investment ; if design flaws can hardly be fixed or long maintenance stops can’t be planned , operating risks are raised to meet the energy supply goals; higher risks mean lower safety level and this pushes for lack of transparency . In a country like France where the nuclear power covers 80% of the electricity supply and the stations include 58 reactors , the lack of transparency in many organizations, from design to operation, from the safety regulator to the government departments , is such that nuclear is stated as the best energy with no need to substantiate this assumption. And yet, when the project of the new French reactor, the EPR, was implemented in Finland , it was delayed for safety issues ; the cost is so far 75% higher than agreed and the initial delivery time shifts from 2009 to , at least, 2012.

             
      Without an accurate and transparent information it will be impossible to form a balanced judgment ; decisions will be made by leading operators on grounds of urgent priorities rather than efficient policies .

Tommaso Fronte
             
                                                                   
                         
                         
                                   
                                             
 
          :::    
                                             
                                             
       
         
       
               



                         
               



                         
                                                                             

© 2009