Energy’s ‘low hanging fruit’

The UK’s energy debate has been framed wrongly, argues analyst Kevin Anderson. He believes we should be looking at issues of demand and efficiency, and not so much at the problem of supply.

The arguments commonly voiced by many of the antagonists are dangerously simplistic and highly misleading in terms of policy. For example, given that nuclear power provides only 3.6% of our final energy consumption, the argument that the UK cannot meet its carbon dioxide targets without building a new generation of nuclear stations to replace the existing and aging generation is evidently wrong.

How much, for example, have the UK’s forays into Afghanistan and Iraq cost the tax payer? Until such costs are factored into the analysis, economic comparisons between fossil fuels and nuclear are essentially meaningless.

BBC