Recent twitter entries...

Saudi Arabia makes "green" changes? By whose definition is nuclear, green?

The Monocle reports in its November edition that Saudi Arabia has 66.5 years of oil left. Their answer: go nuclear. From the Monocle November issue:

"You know the world is changing when Saudi Arabia, the number one exporter
of oil and gas, is toying with the idea of building its first civilian
nuclear power plant."

(issue 28 (2009), p 74)

Let me get this straight: the "world is changing"?! The world will be changing when Saudi invests in purely renewable energy technologies. Going nuclear isn't changing the world, it's running home to what's close and familiar.

Monday evening I attended London's Green Drinks 20th Anniversary where I'm pleased to say that I've had my opinion on nuclear power in developed countries reversed (thanks to a big ginger-haired fellow and an energy infrastructure geek, where I mean geek in the most affectionate way possible). I now understand that in order to achieve emissions reductions necessary to hold the world at a 2 degree Celsius average global temperature rise that developed countries need to utilize nuclear. But Saudi isn't a "developed" country, it's not even an Annex 1 country. It has got more leeway than that and because it has that extra time should devote itself to finishing the development process clean and green.

"World changing"? Sorry Monocle, you've missed the bear.

Comments (0)

Post a Comment