-
I think the BBC Grandees have been leant on.
I wish people wouldn't leap to conspiracy theory bullshit about stuff they don't agree with in the media.
Biomass is commonly considered to be renewable, and is treated as such in incentive schemes across Europe. Quite a few people are questioning if it should receive the same treatment, and some legislators are considering whether it should be reclassified. But for the moment, it remains treated as a renewable for the feed-in tariffs etc etc.
And R4 clearly just misspoke re the nukes, maybe through ignorance or sloppy editing or maybe through the fact it's a live transmission and people make mistakes during live broadcasts. None of the print stories have made this mistake, including on the BBC website.
You are reading a single comment by @mespilus and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
h2o
@mespilus
I think the BBC Grandees have been leant on.
Much as they used to accord Nigel Lawson's fake charity equal weight on climate change discussions, the pro-Nuclear lobbyists appear to have bamboozled non-scientist Governors/Directors/Heads of 'Better' into being unable to differentiate between renewable and 'low carbon'. Fission can just about be classified as 'low carbon' as long as you ignore the carbon embedded in uranium extraction & processing, and the processing of spent fuel rods and the interminable storage of nuclear waste.
Renewable should really be just wind, solar, wave, hydro and pumped storage.
Shipping wood pellets across the Atlantic for the Drax biomass seems arcane to me.