Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
End-use efficiency indeed is appealing to me. Actually, this is the reason why I oppose any energy policy that emphasises nuclear energy as a recourse: it is not a recourse to inefficient use for one, and still is the general discourse a solution, when it's nothing more than an alternative for baseload power.

I don't think it is possible to at the same time develop nuclear energy (that is brag about non-polluting-too-cheap-too-meter-our-new program-will-also-be-called-'ploughshares' electricity) and tell people that they have to spend X euros insulating theirs houses, buying special light bulbs, etc.

To me the discourses go in opposite directions.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Sat Sep 9th, 2006 at 12:54:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Still, all evidence shows that improving efficiency and building renewables just doesn't hack it.

What is needed is closing fossil power plants and replacing them with something else, and that something is very often nuclear.

I see no inherent problem in promoting both nuclear power and improved efficiency.

It can be framed like this: "our power use shall be efficient and our power generation clean and competitive".

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 05:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series