What more could you want from you source of energy ?It doesn't contribute to global warming, it answers concerns about the security of our energy supply (sort of) and, most importantly, it's not ugly.
OK, so you're still sceptical about the merits of it not being ugly. But if it were as ugly as wind farms - as well as having the potential to wipe us all off the face of the earth, fo course - I bet it wouldn't be as high up the agenda as it is. Earlier in the week it was reported that E.On wanted to build two new plants on the north Kent coast, though this was soon denied. I don't really want to open the whole nuclear can of worms (oh, alright then...), but the ongoing debate does seem symptomatic of the general approach to energy generation - ie: populist, NIMBY and just not very refined. 'Out of site out of mind' is the general tone (or should that be 'Tone', after the much lamented former PM?). Wind farms are very visual ang ugly (they may also be quite inefficient, but that's an argument for another day); power stations much less so, though the people of Ferrybridge and Drax etc... might not necessarily agree. But is this grounds for deciding how best to meet our energy and sustainability requirements? If so, here's an idea. Let's start a campaign to get rid of all of those unsightly dams in Scotland, northern England and Wales that provide one of the few sustainable sources of energy we've managed to tap into with any success over the past 100 years. Never mind the fact some people have even come to quite like them and, whisper it quietly, they have become part of the landscape. We might even remove some of the housing pressure in the south-east and spark a property boom in all those flooded villages that could now be 'flooded' with Sarah Beeny and her cohorts instead. "Reclaim the streams" - I can see it now.
Subscribe to The Greenhouse blog by RSS
