Very alarming post from the Daily Telegraph today which is far more disturbing than a mere energy story:
Today I bring you some straight-talking from Professor David MacKay, the UK’s chief scientist on energy and climate change, who started off an excellent speech yesterday with the plain facts that the UK wants to tackle climate change and has fears about energy security.
Who wants to risk being held hostage to fossil fuel producers “with funny accents”? he asked the room.
Funny accents? My God, they'll have dark skins next! At the moment those funny accents apply to four out of six of the UK domestic energy suppliers: Eon, RWE-npower, Iberdrola (Scottish Power) and EDF. Professor MacKay is a big nuclear fan, but there we run into funny accent types "holding us hostage" with the only nuclear constructors having French, German or Japanese accents.
Professor MacKay wrote Without Hot Air (great minds think alike!) a very illuminating book that has one key flaw.
It manages to discuss electricity generation with barely a mention about natural gas, except to mention the old story that it is running out.
We asked Professor MacKay earlier this year of his opinion about shale and got this reply
a surge in natural gas is not relevant to me. My book is about "how do we live without fossil fuels?"
Natural gas provides at least 40% of the fuel for electricity generation. MacKay shares our doubts about CCS for coal, but is a carbon purist when it comes to nuclear. He comes to the conclusion that without carpeting the country with windmills we'll never achieve a no carbon future without a huge increase in nuclear. On the plus side I've got to mention his view on efficiency, while also pointing out his recommendation on wearing sweaters might be sound sense from your mother but is barely a realistic policy.
The core issue is low carbon now versus no carbon in the future. If we don't act now or as soon as 2020, the goals of fifty years may not be a problem.
MacKay's no carbon at all purism is also held by some greens, although carbon purity is the sudden new concern of the nuclear and carbon capture lobbies, who have a lot to gain from the old view of ignoring natural gas or confusing carbon constraints with gas constraints.
This is the reply we got from DECC this morning about the story:
This was an inappropriate choice of words and Professor MacKay regrets any offence that may have been caused. The important point he was intending to make was that much of the world’s remaining fossil fuel reserves lie in potentially unstable regions, this being one of the reasons for the shift to low carbon.
It's hard to give a free pass on unwise comments by those who are funded by the tax payments of many a funny accented taxpayer. We'd be more inclined to do so if he kept an open mind on energy as well.
You know ridicule is more effective in these situations than scorn.
Which accent imperils the realm?
"Woo dogies! I'll sell so much shale gas to the Brits that I can buy myself a new CEE-ment pond!"
"Venn ve zell da gas to do UK, vee can buy more lutefisk!"
"Der Brits will be so dependent on our gas dat ve can make a house out of bricks of Gouda cheese!"
Or...
"That is wonderful Sakhalin gas basin you have developed. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. If you sell right now, think of the money you will save on insurance premiums...life insurance premiums!"
Maybe some can ask the good Doctor which country has the most offensive accent, and why that is the basis for energy policy?
Posted by: Andy | Nov 06, 2009 at 04:39 PM
Update on this from the FT.
ttp://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/11/06/david-mackays-foot-in-mouth-moment-or-why-scientists-and-the-media-dont-mix/
Mystified as to why the Telegraph reporter commended the foot in mouth to her readers as wisdom! I guess The Telegraph is doing so well they can afford to alienate funny-accented readers who can manage to read English, and who can even read it between the lines at that.
Posted by: Guru | Nov 06, 2009 at 07:14 PM