Martin Rowson on a new nuclear power station for Britain – cartoon
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/oct/22/martin-rowson-nuclear-power-station-cartoon
Meanwhile, G. Monbiot, the most notorious nuclear cheerleader in the UK, is disappointed that the government chose real-world technology rather than the speculative unproved hype that he mistook for nuclear reality.
The farce of the Hinkley C nuclear reactor will haunt Britain for decades
We need nuclear power. But the government has plumped for outdated technology at the worst price imaginable
...
I still support nuclear power. I believe that to abandon our primary source of low carbon energy during a climate change crisis would be madness. It would mean replacing atomic plants with something much worse.
We should, of course, cut our profligate demand for power as much as possible. But if transport and heating are to be powered by low-carbon electricity, total demand is likely to rise even with the most parsimonious use of energy.
And we should make as much use as we can of renewables. But the biggest onshore wind schemes could supply only a fraction of the low-carbon power a nuclear plant can produce. For example, the controversial deployment in mid-Wales would generate just one 14th of the proposed output of Hinkley C. Offshore wind has greater potential, but using it to displace most of our fossil fuel generation is a tough call, even when it's balanced with a nuclear power baseload. Without that you would explore the limits of feasibility. If every square metre of roof and suitable wall in the UK were covered with solar panels, they would produce 9% of the energy currently provided by fossil fuels.
The harsh reality is that less nuclear means more gas and coal. ...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/farce-hinckley-nuclear-reactor-haunt-britain
No George, less nuclear only means more coal and gas if and only if the Conservative government choses for it to mean more coal and gas. You need to reread the entirety of McKay's book carefully instead of just skimming over the highlights; for while 'back of the envelope' section makes it sound like there is a shortage of renewable potential, the actual details further on in the missive conclusively refute that premature, nuclear industry driven conclusion that McKay propagandizes for them.