I am not critical of renewable energy in and of itself. I am critical of how overstated its potential is for nation-scale decarbonisation. So although this is certainly realistic:
Personally I would rather and, not or. I understand many people hate them, or are disturbed in some way by the noise they make. They can pose a real threat to many species of pollinators and insectivores. They are not suitable or economical in many locations. But I like how they look, and they will harness a lot of energy in the right locations
I am refering to solar as well as wind, the modern public perception of renewable energy. There is also growth forecast for hydroelectric capacity, and I want to see support for development of wave energy. I think biomass needs to be carefully controlled if it is to be counted in the clean, renewable slice of the energy pie chart.
All these technologies will play their parts well if used realistically. Rather than advantaging one low-carbon generation technology over any other, high-carbon methods should instead be penalised, based ideally on intensity. Developed nations enforce strict limits on solid and liquid pollution so it is consistent to similarly restrict gaseous waste, especially the stuff that is having a far greater impact than the rest ever had.
No matter how good the intentions, no matter how ambitious the renewable energy plan is, adding modern nuclear energy to that mix will accelerate the transition to low carbon power.
Picture adapted from:
earthyreport.com
world-nuclear-news.org
(did I mention I’m not an artist?)
The Actinide Age 