Unit 8, Listening 1, Energy: What’s the Least Worst Option?


Energy: What’s the Least Worst Option?

David Shukman: Protests about power. How we get it, where it comes from. Why is everyone so angry about energy? I’ve come to Yorkshire, a land where the rocks hold rich seams of coal[1] and where the winds race over the hills offering a very different sort of power.

No single kind of energy can answer all of our needs. We have a mix and the question is how that should change. The challenge with energy is that each type of it has pros and cons.

Burning coal gives us 40% of our electricity. It is cheap and also very polluting. Burning gas gives us 30%. It’s much cleaner but we either import the stuff or frack it out of the ground here in Britain. Nuclear offers a nice, steady 20%, but it is expensive. Which leaves renewables like wind, it’s intermittent, there’s no pollution, but who would actually want one of these right on their doorstep?

So, those are the choices. What do we want? So how to decide what’s right? Gary Smith is the conservation director of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. His top priority is climate change. So he likes wind power, but just doesn’t want it here. So, why do you keep objecting to wind farms?

Smith:            Well, I think the answer to that question really is what we can see all around us here.

Shukman:     You wouldn’t like a lovely big 200-turbine farm[2] over here, but generating a lot of power?

Smith:            Yeah, I mean, I think as a society, you know, we need energy. That’s a given.

Shukman:     But not here.

Smith:            But not right in this particular location. I think, uh . . .

Shukman:     Does that make you a NIMBY[3]?

Smith:            Possibly, possibly.

Shukman:     How conflicted do you feel personally as someone who says they are really interested in tackling climate change, but as the man who not only doesn’t allow wind turbines in the park, but also stops many others around the edge of the park?

Smith:            You know, climate change is happening, we think. It certainly seems like it is. Scientists tell us it is, and we’re seeing some signs of how that’s changing the park, but it is a slow and gradual process.

Shukman:     It doesn’t merit[4], in your view, plastering[5] this place in wind turbines.

Smith:            We would say it doesn’t merit plastering this place in wind turbines right now.

Shukman:     Even though we’re both a bit chilly because there is a very stiff cold breeze coming off the hills, isn’t there?

Smith:            If you were a wind farm developer, you would think this is a cracking place[6] to put something potentially.

Shukman:     So if not wind turbines then what about something more traditional? The stuff that fueled the Industrial Revolution. Coal lies in a great mountain down the road at Drax in South Yorkshire. This is Britain’s largest power station and because coal is polluting, it is another target for protest. Coal is a dirty word for environmental campaigners[7]. Phil Garner represents the British coal industry. It’s a great day for wind, isn’t it?

Garner:          It is.

Shukman:     Because there is a nice breeze, the turbines are spinning, mostly. Why do you think wind isn’t the answer and that coal belching[8] away behind us actually is?

Garner:          Wind’s not the answer in itself. It’s got a part to play, but it’s a minor contributor when in comparison with a station like Drax. This wind farm over its last 12 months generated less than 1% of what Drax is capable of doing.

Shukman:     And you think that’s a reason for not only keeping our coal stations, but actually building more of them?

Garner:          Building more super-efficient ones with the ability to reduce their carbon emissions[9] in comparison with Drax, by having more efficient boilers and more efficient turbines, gives you the opportunity then to retrofit carbon capture storage[10] later.

Shukman:     That’s down the track. You accept that coal right now is the most polluting form of energy, isn’t it?

Garner:          Yes.

Shukman:     And you can’t argue with that?

Garner:          No.

Shukman:     Do you also then accept that carbon emissions do have a role in climate change or could do?

Garner:          And I think the answer to that is I don’t know. I am not totally convinced.

Shukman:     You don’t accept the science on that?

Garner:          I’m not sure that the science is entirely proven, but equally, I’m not sure that we can afford to ignore it.

Shukman:     As it goes now, that power station is chucking out[11] a lot of carbon dioxide.

Garner:          It is chucking out a lot of carbon dioxide at the moment, but equally, it is also producing a lot of affordable electricity.

Shukman:     So, if we don’t want coal because it is too polluting or wind because we think the turbines are an eyesore[12], how about nuclear? To explore the nuclear option, I’ve come to Hardwell in Oxfordshire, the birthplace of British nuclear power. This is the old reactor[13] hall. It is amazing, isn’t it?

Shukman:     I am with Mark Lynas. He’s an environmentalist who now sees nuclear energy as essential.

Lynas:            Civil nuclear power is the bright new thing that was meant to generate all our energy. I think this was commissioned in 1956.

Shukman:     It’s freezing in here isn’t it?

Lynas:            Absolutely, bone-chillingly cold.

Shukman:     And now were right on top of the reactor . . .

Lynas:            . . . or was a reactor.

Shukman:     What was it exactly, that . . . is it . . . what flipped you into being a green, pro-nuclear convert? I mean, you’ve been talking about how you have been reading into the science of climate change, for example.

Lynas:            Because if you want to deal with climate change and you want to keep global temperatures from rising to catastrophic levels, we have to generate very large amounts of zero-carbon power.

Shukman:     What about wind? What about solar?

Lynas:            Well, wind and solar are going to be a major part of the solution, and I would like to see them upscaled by 10, 100, 1000 times, but even if you do that, if you take nuclear out of the mix, you can’t run the world.

Shukman:     Would you be happy to have a nuclear power station on your own doorstep? Because one of the key problems with energy at the moment is that nobody seems to want any particular type right where they are living.

Lynas:            No, the only acceptable form of energy for people is magic! People are NIMBY, NIMBYistic, if that’s a word, about everything these days, aren’t they? It could be high-speed rail, it could be wind turbines, people are against everything. If I had to have a power-generating source near me, I would rather it was nuclear rather than coal or gas, let’s put it that way.

Shukman:     This is one of the government’s great hopes, homegrown gas, produced by fracturing[14] shale rock deep underground. But this has faced objections too. I was in Downing Street as an anti-fracking petition was delivered to the prime minister. A dairy farmer, Andrew Pemberton, is worried that drilling could pollute the milk from his herd. Kathryn McWhirter led a protest in Sussex. But, they don’t agree on the alternatives.

Woman:         We in Balcombe have said that we would welcome wind turbines, you know. Actually, I think they’re quite attractive. I have nothing against wind turbines.

Shukman:     You would be happy with wind?

Woman:         I am happy with wind. I am happy with solar. I’m not a great fan of wind farms. I think . . .

Shukman:     What about a big nuclear power station?

Man:               No one wants nuclear, as such.

Shukman:     OK, how about a coal-fired power station? One of those great monster ones like Drax.

Man:               No one wants anything as ugly as that.

Shukman:     Back in the Yorkshire Dales, it strikes me that we are going to need some very big energy projects very soon, and they’ve just got to go somewhere. Whichever type of power you choose, it is going to make someone angry.


[1] seam of coal: noun a thin layer of coal (hard rock fossil fuel) burned to produce heat

[2] turbine farm: noun collection of engines that get power from water, air, or gas

[3] NIMBY: noun a person who objects to an unpleasant change in his or her neighborhood (Not in My Back Yard)

[4] merit: verb to deserve

[5] plaster: verb to display widely and conspicuously

[6] cracking place: noun, British slang an excellent spot

[7] campaigner: noun a person who takes part in a political or social change movement

[8] belch: verb to produce a loud noise

[9] carbon emission: noun a release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

[10] retrofit carbon capture storage: phrase to put in new equipment to store carbon

[11] chuck out: phrasal verb, informal to release

[12] eyesore: noun an object that is unpleasant to look at

[13] reactor: noun a structure used to produce nuclear energy

[14] fracture: verb to crack a hard material

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unit 5, Listening 1, Part 1: Urban Settlements

Part 1: Urban Settlements Narrator:        Almost 180,000 people move into cities each day. And now, for the first time in human history, the majority of the world’s population live in urban settlements . Urban settlements can be as large as megacities like Tokyo in Japan, with 35 million inhabitants . . . or as small as the city of Canterbury in the United Kingdom, home to little more than 40,000 residents. And yet, they have many similarities. Every urban settlement has a central business district in its historic core . This trading district is always situated where several main roads meet, and is the primary location for shops, offices, restaurants, and entertainment. High land value means few people live here. This is the main difference between the central business district and other urban zones. During the Industrial Revolution, many towns experienced a massive [1] influx of industry workers. These workers and their families ne...
Read more

Unit 7, Listening 2, Change Is in the Making

Change Is in the Making Kevan Gilbert: Welcome to Change is in the Making , Domain7’s podcast where we explore all things digital through the lens of purposeful change. I’m Kevan Gilbert. Veronica Collins: And I’m Veronica Collins, and together, we’ll be discussing themes of connection making and culture shaping. We’ll be delving into [1] how to create meaningful change from a business standpoint and a human perspective. Gilbert:           Today, we’re looking at the exploding reality of quote, unquote “digital transformation.” . . . Collins:           But I saw somebody call it a digital revolution the other day instead of digital transformation, and that really seems to ring true, that we’re living through, in the same way that the Industrial Revolution [2] completely reorganized people’s lives. We’re living through a digital transformation in that way— Gilbert:   ...
Read more

Unit 6, Listening 2, America’s Magnet for Innovation and Investments

America’s Magnet for Innovation and Investments Renee Montagne, Host: Think of the most technologically innovative companies of the last 50 years—Intel, Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter. Each one has a Silicon Valley address, and each one got backing from venture capitalists . Over the last decade, more than a third of the nation’s venture capital has gone into Silicon Valley, and much of it has come from there, as well. In our series on the history of Silicon Valley, NPR’s Laura Sydell has this story on how venture capital and high tech grew up together. Sydell, byline: When tech entrepreneurs go looking for money, they can easily end up here: University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto, with its clean brick sidewalks and high-end boutiques. Bill Reichert is a venture capitalist. Reichert:       Within five blocks of here, there are probably between 30 and 40 venture capital firms. And there are probably also about 30 or 40 start-up companies that have b...
Read more