Fashion designer Katharine Hamnett was on the BBC’s graveyard political show This Week first broadcast last week March 18 arguing against nuclear power in the wake of the Japan Fukushima Nuclear plant disaster and still potential meltdown – with host Andrew Neil studio regular Michael Portillo and Labour MP and current regular guest Jacqui Smith.
The case for it was reprised - energy security and reducing the carbon foot-print – not being over-dependent on Oil and the despotic regimes responsible for much of its output and being clean and green.
Naturally arguing against nuclear power or at least to pause and re-consider its safety and security before commissioning any new reactors the alternatives were considered – and the alternatives discussed were wind, carbon capture & storage of existing fossil fuels, finally tidal power, but not solar power – it was listed in her preamble but not mentioned at all in the ensuing studio discussion.
I wondered about this – perhaps the science was still not advanced enough – or perhaps too expensive to be commercially viable. I do not profess an expertise in this area and thought it was something I should explore further.
And what should arrive in my Inbox a few days later in the latest weekly Email from Scientific American but a guest blog article by Ramez Nam titled ‘Smaller, cheaper, faster: Does Moore’s law apply to solar cells?’.
You should read the article yourself as it will explain it far better than I ever could but its brief thrust is that solar power could provide not just some of all our energy needs – not even all our energy needs so much as beyond all our energy needs! We would be overwhelmed by the surplus it could produce. And the science is there and commercially it is getting ever cheaper ever more viable – if not viable just yet – a decade or so over the horizon perhaps.
And in respect of the energy production and consumption cycle so much greener and safer – no terrifying radioactive waste produced needing to be stored for millennia thereafter. And no nation would or could have a monopoly on it.
Why then is solar power so overlooked and why are so many countries continuing to go nuclear? I am not going to ask why governments and political parties are not able to look beyond the horizon of the next election cycle – I am not that naive! – but cannot but wonder that had a solar bomb been developed in the last century as part of the Manhattan Project rather than a nuclear one that solar energy would now be in all our homes.
War leading science, the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
- Japanese Developers Find Growing Interest in Homes With Solar Panels (kleenergyecosystems.wordpress.com)