To utilise wind properly you have to have access to comperable amounts of 'rapid response' plant like hydro plant. Denmark can only use a third of its wind capacity itself - rest is exported to hydro contries like Norway. Only Spain uses its wind to capacity since it has adequate hydro no CO2 is saved. The UK does not adequate water capacity

Dear Mark,

I agree with the basic tenor of your article. I'm not fanatically anti-nuclear, or religiously pro-nuclear. I am though, rather sceptical about the promised, and perhaps exaggerated benefits of nuclear. As I've discovered recently having taken part in huge debate on Britain's nuclear future, this issue is very polarizing, heated, controversial, and not least, highly complex.

I do think you're wrong in suggesting that Greens shouldn't interest themselves with the economics of nuclear power but stick to what they know. This is both undesirable and impossible, because the cost of nuclear is far from clear cut, and may well be 'unpayable'. Despite what many people think, more does not grow on trees, and scarce resources 'wasted' on nuclear might well have been better utilized on other areas of energy production, namely renewables. What if we suddenly can't do it all, and we have to choose? Then, surely, the Greens would be correct in examining where we get best value for money and use our scarce resources optimally, no?

My general feeling is that Britain's entire energy sector has been grossly and irresponsibly mismanaged for decades. What's been lacking has been long term, stategic, planning, integrating all the different sectors of energy production; oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables, into a whole. Instead, everything has been piecemeal and central government has abdicated responsibility, prefering to let the private sector steer. It's this state of affairs that has lead us into the mess we're in today. It's almost as if the privatization of the railways was seen as so brilliantly successful, that it was decided to adopt it as a model for the rest of society!

I also believe you're underestimated problems the private sector has in relation to nuclear. This isn't really a political point, more pragmatic. Ideally the private sector would like to build and run the nuclear facilities, but they get cold feet when the costs of decommissioning are considered, and the cost of looking after the substantial quantities of radioactive waste produced. They would like the State to take over the task or give massive and open-ended subsidies and garantees. The State is wary about both areas because the costs involved go from massive to almost infinite. The nuclear sector is anything but 'free' and a 'market'. The State is already deeply involved and always will be. Without State involvement and tax subsidies it's highly debatable whether nuclear is commercially feasable.

Another telling point is the problem of insuring a nuclear facility in the case of an accident where radioactivity leaks out into the surrounding environment, with potentially disasterous results to follow. Now, there are those who allege that modern nuclear is virtually risk free and the chances of a major accident are near zero. If this is really true, then it's strange that nuclear plants in the US and the UK are not insured against accident by the private insurance sector. Currently I believe the private sector is only willing to insure nuclear plants for around two or three percent of the cost of an accident, even though those who support nuclear say the days of accidents are over! Guess who, in the event of an accident will be left to pay? That's right - the State! Once again this is another massive subsidy for nuclear and a potentially 'infinite' cost.

It's also worth mentioning that on a small and densely populated island like Britain the consequences of nuclear are, in reality unknowable and therefore infinitely expensive. What would happen if the north of england became uninhabitable for several centuries if a core went into meltdown and massive ammounts of highly radioactive material spread into the environment? What price could one put on the North? Where would the people go and live? Would they all move into the Home Counties and move in with the rest of us? Could a big accident effectively mean the end of Britain as a functioning State? Once again another potentially 'infinite' outlay to put on the 'cost' side of nuclear power. Does one see a pattern emerging here?

Then there's the problem of what would happen if Britain decided to build a whole 'New Generation' of nuclear plants and there was suddenly an accident in a country without our sterling record on safety and build-quality! What do you think would happen when people in this country saw the results of a major accident on there television screens? Wouldn't the Greens go absolutely bananas, along with millions of others, taking to the streets and demanding that the government close all Britain's nuclear sites. This would be an 'irrational' and 'emotonal' response, but no less dangerous, powerful, and disasterous. How would the government react to mass, anti-nuclear demonstrations paralyzing Britain's cities and using direct action to close the nuclear plants? I believe there could be 'substantial problems' in maintaining order and stability. If the government bowed to public pressure, where would they find a substitute for nuclear power? Wouldn't we be up a creek without a paddle?

We are, for a variety of reasons, in a very bad position in relation to energy in the UK, worse than probably any advanced country. We've wasted our oil and gas lifeline, and now we're increasingly dependent on imports. Imports which may not be around for much longer. On worldwide basis we've now used up about half our oil reserves. From now on the oil is going to be of an increasingly poorer quality, far less abundant, and much, much, more costly. A hundred dollars a barrel is just the beginning!

What we should be doing is initiating a government organized stratgic plan for dealing with the coming 'energy crisis' putting Britain on something close to a war-footing, but without the police state methods. A massive campaign to reduce petrol consumption is required. One could start with car free days and then gradually increase the number of car-free days, once people accepted them. Take the railways back into public ownership and re-establish British Rail. Invest twice as much in the railway system. Nationalize the bus companies. Pay people far more to insulate their homes and put in double-glazing. Bring in draconian methods to eliminate energy waste. There is a massive ammount that can be done here, because we are so wanton, but it needs a proper strategy. The days of waste and throw-away are over, now we are entering the days of scarcity. Have some courage from government to lead, instead of follow the sacred market God we worship. Make it a political priority to reverse the worst escesses and absurdities of the consumer society. It's not only morally wrong that we consume so much while others have so little, it's also impossible in the long run to continue down this road - it's literally a dead end for society. Change society from the top to the bottom, starting with the voting system. Introduce proportional representation and return power to Parliament. Refrom the entire tax system and abolish VAT. Tax the rich until the pips squeek! Put caps on incomes. No one allowed to earn more than a million pounds a year. If they don't like it, hard luck, they can always go abroad, and show everyone how patriotic they really are! There are, after all, plenty of talented people able to replace those who choose to immigrate, we'd probably be better off without them anyway! People who want more than a million pounds a year are greedy and selfish and anti-social. We have to make a start on building a new type of society, not based on greed and gorging ourselves on resources that are running out. It's not as if we really have any choice. The only choice we have is whether we take charge and change in an orderly fashion, with everyone involved, bearing the burdens equally and justly, sharing and helping one another; or we carrry on towards the cliff edge. We let the 'free market' decide our future and our fate. If we do that, all we'll have to look forward to is more of the last thirty years of 'Thatcherism', only harsher, far harsher, 'Thattchersim' without the wealth. Thatcherism with only the iron fist, no gloss and no glitz, that's coming to an end. The National Security State isn't going to be fun. Because now we don't have the oil and gas to pay for it all. We've wasted that legacy, and another miracle isn't anywhere on the horizon. The great and monsterous, thirty year, debt bubble is bursting, and the chickens, huge, ferocious things, are really coming home to roost!

Dearest Pat-meister!

why can't we live on what that gives us?
And why shouldn't there be a limit to society's consumption?
The earth is finite. Fair doo's to technologists. you rape it to a point it can't repair, just so u can have unneccesary luxuries? Fair doosy's- we can have luxurys else there'd be no point to this life but- all these debates n shit would be pointless if we weren't so greedy. i don't meen we should go "back-to-nature" n be all hippy n shit. but theres enough resources to go around, IF we spread it about instead of concentrating it into half of the worlds (or less) populations wallet.
right now your thinking- "oh, this kids a redistrubutionist...what a tit". but ye i suppose thats what it is.
you driving to work may not directly cause a draught in kenya, but by you not doing so, you might be able to help out.
I'm guessing you think that if you work for it, then you diserve it, which is fair enough. But it's a bit fucked that the billions of people who are working a shit load harder don't get a fraction of what you get, so again, not directly but your stealing from them, because as you say, it's not about individual countrys. this world is a unit.
umm...the point in saying any of this...we're commenting on a media source. This affects the world, like a domino affect ye?

I know i've missed a lot of the finer points out but things might become slightly less intracet and complicated once you take away the divisions of greed.

I'm only sixteen by the way...I won't be back on here to check what you say about that but it might be intersting in your own mind to see if you think i'm chatting shit because I don't have quite as much life/ work/ money experience as you or if i speak of a more humble truth that hasn't been corrupted by greed yet, after all i'm still spoon fed cutsy wootsy good morals from fairy tales...

Well yes, we Yanks do object to our lifestyles being interefered with by the central government - that's the principle on which you Brits and we Yanks have differed since 1776.