Sparking a Debate

The great "how shall we generate electricity" debate has resurfaced once again. The sides are many - the nuclear lobby, the wind loving environmentalists, the nimby anti-windmill protesters. There is broad agreement that burning fossil fuels is not sustainable - if only because we will eventually run out. Beyond that, each side is content to peddle half-truths and misinformation. So, where in the midst of these arguments does a sustainable future lie?

The major arguments at present are mainly concerned with nuclear and wind power. A brief examination of the arguments will illustrate the problems. Wind power is objected to on the grounds that the windmills are unattractive, and that wind power is only available when the wind blows. Let's leave aside the simple fact that we live in one of the windiest countries in the world - we can all accept that there are days when the air is pretty still, even in the Forth valley wind tunnel where I live. The argument being made is that since wind power cannot possibly supply all our needs, we shouldn't use it at all. While that might seem superficially reasonable, in fact the same argument can be applied to nearly every form of electricity generation. After all it takes several days to significantly change the output of a nuclear plant, several hours for one which is gas or coal fired. As far as I am aware, only hydroelectric schemes are capable of an instantaneous response to demand - and then only where there is a huge body of water in reserve. At the moment, over-production during periods of low demand is used to pump water into hydroelectric reserves. Why wind power should be treated any different is beyond me.

Meanwhile, those in favour of nuclear power claim that only nuclear power is environmentally friendly. The basis for this ludicrous claim is that nuclear power releases no carbon dioxide during production, and relatively little during manufacture. So far, so true. Nuclear's environmental impact, however, is the waste it produces. Bluntly, the time scales involved are scary. Reprocessing a single batch of nuclear waste will take longer than the history of civilisation to date. Think about that - if we'd started reprocessing nuclear waste at the dawn of civilisation, we wouldn't have finished yet. We wouldn't be half way. Not only that, but nuclear waste is incredibly dangerous. One accident in as much as a hundred millennia, and large areas will be rendered uninhabitable. Does that sound environmentally friendly to you?

Basically, the wind versus nuclear argument comes down to ugly but safe installations versus uglier, more dangerous, but fewer buildings. Given the choice in my backyard, I'd take windmills. Personally, I find a few windmills quite attractive, but I don't believe anyone can reasonably claim that nuclear power stations are more attractive than pretty much anything. And the danger was already covered above. The only reason anyone is choosing nuclear over wind is that they don't believe the problems of nuclear power won't effect their area in their lifetime. But nuclear versus wind is the wrong question.

There is no one right answer to the real question - how to generate electricity. There are many options we have barely begun to explore. Why are there still new builds without photo-electric cells in the roof? In the past, such cells have been expensive to produce (in both financial and energy terms) but that cost has dropped recently, and is likely to continue to do so in the near future. Why are we not exploiting off-shore wave farms? As an island nation, we would seem to be ideally positioned to do so. By anchoring wave farms sufficiently off-shore we could avoid any visual impact for those on the coast, and there would be the added advantage of imposing inherently enforceable no-fishing zones. The costs involved in transporting off-shore power to the mainland are now known to have been exaggerated by a factor ten, making them far more comparable to the costs quoted for nuclear power. (It is perhaps worth noting that the costs for nuclear power do not include the reprocessing costs, which given the time-scales involved are essentially unknowable.)

Our energy needs are unlikely to decrease - quite the opposite. To cope with this we need a more sensible approach than the current stale debate between the entrenched interests of the nuclear industry and the minimal effort fig-leaf of wind farms. By making each home and office more self-sufficient for electricity the need for massive investment in the national grid can be minimised, and by imaginative investment in a range of truly sustainable generators, the shortfall can be met with minimal impact on the planet, both now and for millennia to come.

Graham Robinson. 18th August 2004.

Grading the Grades

Mid-August? It must be A-Level argument time of year again. The government has launched a pre-emptive strike this time, with David Miliband attacking critics before anyone has had a chance to claim they've been dumbed down. The debate seems to be rather missing the point. Whether the exams are easier or teaching standards have improved, more pupils are getting higher grades. Which means that it is very difficult to distinguish the extraordinary students from the merely very good.

Whether exams are getting easier in England I can't comment on, but there is no doubt they are in Scotland. The syllabus is now smaller than it was when I sat what are theoretically the same exams. It is hard to see how the syllabus can shrink without making the exams proportionately easier. Since Scottish pupils doesn't appear to have improved notably faster than their English counterparts, this might suggest that the improvements in England have a similar explanation.

However, the real issue is whether an exam distinguishes between two pupils of notably different ability. Last year over twenty percent of A-Levels were awarded an A grade. For universities interested in taking the top one percent or below, this doesn't provide a lot of guidance. The obvious solution would be to report bands within the grades. This was done for Scottish exams when I was at school, with the school being informed how each pupil had performed in five percent bands. This information was never made public, but perhaps it should be. Certainly, the only group with any need to distinguish purely on the basis of exam results - the universities - would then be able to subcategorise our youths as much as they wish.

Graham Robinson. 18th August 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.