Skip to main content

When will the Green Party go green on energy?

I despair of the Green Party here in the UK. They are still pumping out the same old knee-jerk reaction of the ex-hippies to nuclear power. It's as if they didn't realise how important climate change was. It's not just one item in a green buffet of options. It's the big one. 

We need massive change to deal with the climate emergency - and that includes moving to a mix of energy generation that doesn't produce greenhouse gasses. Yes, there must be plenty of wind and solar (and ideally wave/tide too) - but we also need generation that doesn't depend on the weather and sun - for which nuclear is the obvious option.

Caroline Lucas of the Green Party put out this tweet on 1 September 2022, and I don't know where to start.

Of course, a new nuclear plant is not 'the solution to the cost of living crisis' (though nuclear energy is a lot cheaper than the current price of gas). It's part of the long-term solution we desperately need to put in place to complete the move to zero carbon energy generation. There is no magic energy source that will deliver energy security with zero carbon instantly. We need to build the appropriate infrastructure. Of course we need immediate action to slash bills - and that isn't about building new power stations - but that's no excuse for putting of building essential infrastructure to give us energy security in the future. To make matters even worse - Caroline Lucas was saying exactly the same thing a decade ago - and from that perspective we definitely did need help in 10 years time.

Unless the Greens get their heads out of the sand, they remain a barrier to coping with climate change. They are as green as a company trying to get us to use more fossil fuels and should be avoided at all costs.

This has been a Green Heretic production.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou