Power in US, Planes again, Plans for Defra and Proposals from Scottish Executive for new buildings

"If we don't have a policy that drives up the cost of coal, then nuclear is in trouble - coal is just too cheap in the United States" Henry Jacoby, MIT

As well as having arisen in UK again, the nuclear debate has been provoked in US too. Anti-nuclear campaigners are raising reminders of past nuclear disasters: Chernobyl, but also the US's own Three Mile Island accident of 1979. Some suggest that it is such fears that have stalled the progress of nuclear in the states, however, others are quick to point out that this should be attributed to economics rather than emotions. It would need massive government subsidies before it could be a viable alternative to other, cheaper energy forms, and the state simply haven't made the funds available. However, now Bush has promised 'investment incentives' for the next six nuclear plants built through the government's Energy Policy Act. Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the nuclear industry's advocacy group the Nuclear Energy Institute is fully in favour and states 'US energy needs are growing again and the country needs more nuclear power plants as a result.' I personally disagree. US energy needs are growing, but regardless of the debate as to the sources we should exploit to meet those needs, we have to cut energy consumption. The Carbon footprint is larger per capita in the States than it is in any other country, and it is still increasing. There is no excuse for this and we need to work at reducing it. Peterson cites rather the Department of Energy, who have 'forecast a 45% increase in energy demand by 2030' and sees Nuclear as the logical solution to the problem. The US's 103 nuclear plants currently produce a fifth of the country's energy, and this is set to increase as the Nuclear Energy Institute have predicted at least 10 applications for new nuclear plants in the US by the end of 2008. It seems there is greater acceptance of nuclear energy now than there has been for decades, and many are keen to become energy-independent in producing their energy nationally. The consensus is that this decision will be made on economic terms rather than political or ethical. Henry Jacoby is an expert on energy policy and writes that the future of nuclear power will depend on government policy. 'If we had a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system like the European trading system, it would make a big difference'. Here's today's BBC report on it all.

Despite the recent coverage of the risks associated with air travel and the need to reduce it, it seems we are making little headway. Campaigners have long been fighting the ridiculously low air fares for internal and short flights that have fuelled the weekend city break. This is a battle they have been losing, as the state does nothing to reduce such travel through aviation fuel tax and continues to sanction the construction of secondary runways at airports. It appears that this situation is about to deteriorate further, however, as Jack Shenker reports on a new trend: low-cost long-haul flights. He sees many potential pitfalls for such an enterprise, so let's hope it doesn't come off. Here's the story.
I am naturally at least as travel-thirsty as most people, I think, but I can manage to make the sacrifice of not flying. I accept that this is at the least a very inconvenient lifestyle choice, and one that few are willing to make. But, until people realise the necessity of such abstention (which they surely will when it's too late), could they not cut down on unnecessary luxury travel for short breaks. If people must continue to fly, let it be for really good reasons, to reach essential destinations, for reasonable amounts of time. And, make sure to offset Carbon emissions at the least!

And, David Miliband has laid out targets for Defra (see links) in the future. He (rightly, in my opinion) suggests that we need to dramatically cut energy consumption in Britain. He proposed that citizens should feel bound by an 'environmental contract', whereby they would appreciate their rights and responsibilities with respect to the environment. He discussed waste issues in some detail, but also saw the need to work with the Industry secretary, Alistair Darling to change things at a more direct level. Here's a report on it and here's Defra's five-year strategy.

The Scottish executive had put forward a motion that could see new buildings subject to stricter efficiency laws. They would be required to generate at least ten per cent of their own energy from micro-renewables, such as wind turbines or solar panels on site. So far, I can't find all that much out about it, but hopefully it'll come off. I'll post again when I can find out more.
Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm said that "Our target is to generate 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020, but I would like see us go beyond this and make further impact in reducing harmful carbon emissions". Let's hope the rest of UK follows suit, but for now, you can read all I've found out about it here...

More later, perhaps...