Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Nigel Sheinwald
Ambassador

Nigel Sheinwald

Nigel Sheinwald is the British ambassador to the United States. Prior to this he served as Foreign Policy and Defense Adviser to the Prime Minister from 2003 to 2007. ALL POSTS

Projections are very realistic

How realistic are the projections for an increase in nuclear power plants in the coming decades and what can the U.S. learn from the experience Europe has had with nuclear power?

In sum, very realistic.

Our experience in the UK has shown that if you are seriously committed to a low-carbon, reliable and diverse energy mix, with the strictest modern safety measures, then you must consider nuclear energy. Nuclear power should be part of an energy mix that can meet the twin challenges of energy security and climate change.

For this reason, we have backed an expansion of nuclear power, which has broad based political support. Based on a White Paper in 2008, we've put into motion the policy and investment wheels to reinvigorate the UK's nuclear energy industry.

We created the Office of Nuclear Development, dedicated to working with business to remove bureaucratic barriers and enabling investment in the UK from the earliest possible date, with no cap on the amount of new build. Further, by pricing carbon appropriately through our emissions trading scheme, we can expect investment from the industry to ramp up over the next decade. Already we have seen significant investment interest from a number of British and international companies. Our first new nuclear power station is set to be operational by 2018.

We recognize that waste, decommissioning and non-proliferation are serious issues for any country investing in a nuclear energy future. We will approve new power stations only if industry proposals can demonstrate they have effective arrangements for managing the waste they produce and funds to pay for the decommissioning.

The UK experience offers useful pointers for other countries. A number of our European partners are also looking at boosting their nuclear energy programs. But, ultimately, every country has to design its own energy policy that balances considerations like energy independence, a greater reliance on clean energy and what is best for its economy.

By Nigel Sheinwald  |  October 29, 2009; 10:31 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Not for avoiding dangerous climate change | Next: Nuclear only a partial answer

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



I recall seeing Christie on PBS - former head of EPA saying Cheney came down and demanded she turn over her research maps showing serious temperature rise and flooding in the south.

Recently I began wondering why Bush sought to liquidate the housing sector in 2002- I think Cheney and Bush KNEW flooding would bring a crisis to US insurance sector and pop the housing sector anyway- figured they might as well get something for it - ALL the while DENYING it.

I also say - global warming is debatable, but all this flooding ? is not. 1/2 of Greenland's ice cap gone ? NOT debatable.

I saw the insurance sector on c-span two years ago with those very maps - stating coastal properties are costing them too much and they have to raise their premiums.

I find it peculiar, Countrywide had a high percentage of coastal mortgage policies.

I now question when Bush in 2002- when he came out of the blue saying 'forget the down payment, forget the fine print, just turn on Fox, where we're running our Countrywide and DiTech ads 24/7 - and go git your home, and remember, if you're not with us, yer a terrorist'.

I recall those days VERY well.

Now it makes sense why bush would all of a sudden CARE about the African American communities when bush projected CRA pushed mortgages should expand to 500 billion by 2010. And they have.

Bush created inflation in housing, which was followed by deflation, in the meantime - Goldman and crew made out like bandits processing those phony loans.

Remember, Comptroller of Currency Dugan says Countrywide didn't GO to the banks- banks would have LAUGHED a ZERO down payment Bush arranged mortgage product out the door, they went to Wall Street.

All the while denying melting ice, flodding, and now look - look at the south - the impact from flooding is going to CRUSH the US insurance sector. 2 years ago they had near 100 billion EXTRA in reserves to handle claims - with all this flooding ?

That will be gone sooner than you can say - AIG really deserved the money it got to insure Goldman.

This was ONE clever FLEECING - Bush and family actually found a way to sell the LAND in America - keep the rewards for initial loans, and last I checked ? Bush is no where to be found in ANY press.

Don't forget - September 11th, no - not 2001, 2003- when Bush sought to control FAnnie and Freddie and take the WHOLE ball of wax.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/fannie-mae-new-york-times-rides-to.html

The closed door energy policy meetings by Cheney for Enron, TXU, Exxon, Exelon etc, those were to assure final profits could be made.

Remember, if mean ole global warming is real - oil is a USELESS product- and we can't have that can we- Coal is a USELESS product, possibly with LIABILITIES to the coal industry- can't have that either- therefore global warming isn't real...

augh!

we've ALL been robbed, and kicked in the stomach by this former alleged 'administration'. And where was the RUNOFF election in the US ? We just had a private council of 7 people decide Bush 'must have won'.

Is this REAL ?

Is it ?


Posted by: organiclime | November 1, 2009 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bottom line the "USA Establishment" is heavily invested into oil and coal and high prices in both are very good for THEM.
Carter was a agent of Standard Oil (and Coal).

And solar and wind power is no competition.

Posted by: WilliamBlake | October 31, 2009 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I doubt Britain had to deal with as many crazy nut jobs as we do in the US. Why couldn’t Harry Reid, Ralph Nader, Amory Lovin, and Ed Markey come from Britain and promote their anti-nuclear diatribe their? The answer is the British electorate won’t put up with these types of anti-nuclear fear mongers. In Britain they base their discussions on science not fear. In fact they look at fear mongers as people who are bit mentally unstable. They look at giving creditability to a fear monger as the same they would to following a crazy over a cliff. If Lovins and Markey raised the same type of anti-nuclear rhetoric in Britain as they do here they would loose all creditability and be seen as the true nut jobs that they are.

I am not saying that Britain does not have to deal with their own NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor. But our US NIMBY’s have significantly more influence. Our US judicial system will give standing to any NIMBY regardless of how ludicrous their argument is. Even our own media be it CNN, FOX, the Washington Post, or Glenn Beck has a significant economic advantage to give a voice to any NIMBY who asks to be in the spot light. It is preposterous, stupid, and inane to give credence to anyone that does not have sound science to back up their arguments. But this does not stop our media from giving a stage and thus creditability to crazies like Nader, Lovins, and the other anti-nuclear fear mongers.

What ever happened to the scientific editors? Is it not the scientific editor’s role to fight the temptation of giving a voice to these fear mongers? The sad fact is it is more important to have readers, viewers, and listeners than it is to preserve ones own media integrity. Today’s scientific editors are seen as more of a hindrance to the bottom line than that of a liability. I guess the quick buck wins over the public good once again.

Let’s build 200 new nuke plants now and save the planet,

Jfarmer9

Posted by: jfarmer9 | October 29, 2009 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company