DECC Disappear An Inconvenient Graph!
By Paul Homewood
Hats off to Emily Gosden and the Telegraph for spotting this one.
Hat-tip to our Energy Correspondent Emily Gosden for this Department of Energy & Climate Change infographic. It was deleted from Gov.uk this week "because of sensitivities", according to a DECC press officer. "Hmmm," says Emily. Quite.
It turns out that the Renewable Energy Association called it "unhelpful" in a press release, pleading that "as Ed Davey stressed… it is not an either/or choice".
What’s going on at DECC? I’d hate to start a conspiracy, but did the infographic come from the Tory Energy Minister Michael Fallon’s people? Was it squashed by the Lib Dem Energy Secretary, Ed Davey?
Here (via @owenboswarva) is how the Government’s official Hinkley Point C news story looked on Wednesday:
And on Thursday:
Move along people, nothing to see here.
Update
A slightly clearer image below.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
What I don’t really understand is why we are proposing to build a new nuclear power station on the coast, where it may be at risk from predicted future sea level rise and, perhaps more seriously a possible tsunami caused by volcanic eruptions in La Palma.
You forget to mention the melting Arctic and the predicted gargantuan sea-level rise. Oh wait! The Arctic ice extent is growing back …. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ … it’s official! It’s also true that Antarctic ice is increasing – just do a Google.
Dear GreenPeace, the polar bears are saved – this probably explains why your Save the Arctic ads have disappeared. Or are you holding back in order to defend the hooliganism charges in Russia?
Actually I did mention sea level rise, not that I put much faith in the higher estimates, but the Government are supposed to believe them, so building nukes on the coast would seem to be contradictory.
Of course, melting sea ice shouldn’t affect sea level anyway!
Nuclear plants benefit greatly from coastal siting, because they need copious quantities of (sea) water for cooling. That’s why all those in the UK are around our coastline.
If a serious tsunami from anywhere reaches the UK, the fate of a few reactors could be the least of our worries. Coastal windmills will get pushed over, and solar farms will be inundated with corrosive salt water.
Yes, I had forgotten that the new reactors were water cooled, not gas cooled.
There is supposed to be a risk of a tsunami from La Palma, although I am not sure how real it is:
http://www.tsunamiwatch.co.uk/
I think that a large tsunami might have more serious consequences on a nuclear plant than on coastal wind turbines and solar farms. Remember what happened in Fukushima!
I think the only serious tsunami we could get is if the volcano on La Palma in the Canaries goes bang.(which it is likely to in the next 100,000 years or so!)
http://rense.com/general13/tidal.htm
If it does, the last thing we will be worrying about is a bit of radioactivity!
PS I was backpacking in the Welsh mountains near Trawsfynedd in 1986, when there was an earthquake! I thought at the time it was thunder (though it was a cloudless sky), as there was just a long baaaaaaang!
I only found out a couple of days later, when I got home, that it was an earthquake.
And why is this significant? There was a nuclear power station about 5 miles away.
And the moral of the story? In those days we were more worried about the Russians blowing us all up, than anything nature could throw at us.
QV;
Remember what happened at Fukushima?
If only. The tsunami killed thousands, radioactivity killed zero, and nuclear hysteria displaced hundreds of thousands. Remember that.
Reblogged this on Quixotes Last Stand.
Gosh. We could have 1 nuclear plant, and 249,570 acres of woodland to be harvested for biomass.
That’d save an awful lot of wood-miles shipping American woodchips to Drax.
Paul;
Allow the images to embiggen, please. Even in my youth I could not have read the article in 1 point print.
The Telegraph link gives a good enlargement here.