REVOLT opposing unnecessary, excessive and intrusive powerline development

opposing unnecessary, excessive and intrusive powerline development

REVOLT Newsletter 193

Revolt news 29/07/2005


1. The last few weeks have been busy with global warming hype in the run up to the G8 summit. The polarisation of argument is illustrated by the astonishing politicisation of the Royal Society and the issue of a key contrary report by the House of Lords Select Committee just before the summit. I would like to write more about global warming and uncertainty in risk management, and about these reports, but time prohibits it. Some brief comments appear incidentally in the attachment.

2. As the USA declined the full Kyoto agreement, the G8 outcome was more muted than some hoped, but had its positive points. Then only yesterday G8 was upstaged by the Asia-Pacific agreement, which includes all the really big countries and dwarfs the Kyoto effort. The Asia-Pacific and Bush approaches focus on technology as the key, whereas Kyoto aims at emissions reduction targets.

3. I have some doubt that technology or targets, alone, will fix the problem, as both approaches are predicated on economic growth, and in turn on growth of per capita consumption and of population. I wonder what is a sustainable population for England and for the world, with modern living. I wonder too whether a fundamental solution might require control of population and of gross consumption, and thereby a halt to economic growth. But that is probably politically incorrect!

4. Turning from the wider topic of climate change to energy policy and the specifics of wind power, a flurry of new reports have appeared here too. Not least Jonathan Porritt's Sustainable Development Commission's glossy report championing wind power, under the disguise of an independent study. A more genuine independent study appeared shortly after from the Oxford Institute of Environmental Studies showing the flaws in Porritt's propaganda.

5. Having attended a North Yorkshire Renewable Energy Study workshop on 14.7.05, within the regional planning framework, I have today submitted written comments as attached. These comments mention recent key publications and enlarge on the central fault in Porritt's report, namely the failure to grasp the essence of the back-up problem. The comments try again to explain this, in terms of Bulk Back-Up actually delivered, which is quite different from the problems of capacity needs or stand-by reserve.

6. The attached comments refer to my submission of May 05 to Hambleton DC, which appeared as Appendix 4 with news188. Apart from other sources given in the comments, there is a recent report from the Council for Science and Technology, a government advisory council. 'An Electricity Supply Strategy for the UK' of May 2005 builds on the 2003 White Paper, points to the need for a new energy strategy for firm generation and notes shortcomings of wind power.  




Custom Search

Search the web

Custom Search