Blair's reaching for the red phone as the UK is up in arms over its energy supply situation. The country is floundering for a clear path forward. The nukes vs. renewables debate, in my opinion a bad argument from both sides, rages on while old BP's set to spend $1.8 billion on clean energy. Meanwhile, part of the solution, a huge 700 MW wind farm on Lewis Island (to name one of many) is continually being struck down by environmentalists.
Sadly, in a crisis situation the environment starts to sound like a luxury as power supply of any sort becomes a necessity for economic activity, and heating in the cold winter expected for this year. What is also unfortunate is that permitting and grid connection challenges facing renewables boosts the argument for nuclear power. Well-lobbied nuclear is set up as a quick fix.
Crisis conditions call for crisis solutions--but this does not sound like the right approach, as taxpayers and the environment (nuclear waste vs. CO2 vs. bird nesting/visual impact) pay in the long term. But then again, I have the luxury of not living in the UK.
UPDATE
Nice column in the Guardian here taking a look at both sides of the nuclear/renewables debate - which seems to encourage more productive discussion. He draws from UK Energy Policy to say 26,000 MW of wind can replace just 5,000 MW of fossil fuel - but not clear what kind of capacity factors you'd be using here (offshore can get up to 40%). The important thing though is talking about complementarity and a mix - and properly weighing the good and evil of both.