Your two articles quoting Amory Lovins, chief executive of the Rocky Mountain Institute (NCE last week) leave me unimpressed by any show of incisive intellect. Here are just a few examples:
Mr Lovins says there is a need to use 'wind, tidal, solar, geothermal and biomass' sources as alternatives to centralised thermal generation plants. Agreed, but he also states: 'It makes sense to put the power supply nearer to the demand.' Does Mr Lovins understand the geography of this country, in particular the locations of the 'renewables' areas in relation to population centres?
He also states that nuclear power is 'commercially unrealistic' and 'not economically viable' and would require 'subsidy from the public purse'. What else is the public purse intended for except the provision for the common good of essential services that are unattractive commercially?
Relying on the commercial free market for such provision has offered countless examples of costly and awkward failure.
Mr Lovins also refers to retrofitting property in the UK and states that this could achieve 60% energy savings and pay back in two to three years. This is a fine unsupported declaration of faith.
Utter twaddle - could do better.
George Kistruck (M rtd), George@kistruck. com]