BBC - Royal Society praises Scots education system

See the Article here: Royal Society praises Scots education system.
My only comment is what took them so long (if I have a minor criticism of the system is Scotland is it does tend to teach Scottish, rather than British History).

The Dutch have changed on Energy - The UK should do the Same

The Dutch have been major supporters of Green Energy and during the lead up to the Kyoto Agreement took to chivvying other EU States to a near 'bullying; level. Now the Dutch Government has not so much modified its Green view of Energy, but written an entirely new Energy Policy, which has Green Elements, but has taken a pragmatic cost based view of how to meet the energy needs of the Country now and in the future.

How the average Dutch citizen view the change of direction I won't attempt to guess, but I suspect the EU Commission will be upset (possibly enraged). So what are the changes? In summary the major points are:

• Abandoning EU-wide target of producing 20 per cent of its domestic power from renewables.
• Slashing the Subsidies for wind and solar power from €4bn annual subsidy, it will be slashed to €1.5bn.
• Sanctioning the building of new Nuclear Plants, the first in 40 years.

With 20/20 Hindsight there has been at least one indication that policy change was on the way. The country's only nuclear plant (built in 1973) was initially scheduled for closure in 2003. At the time this decision was taken was a high point of the European (except France) policy of abandoning Nuclear Power Plants. The planned closure date was allowed to creep past the deadline and in 2006 was given an operating extension to 2034, plus the decision not build any new plants was reversed, but not actually giving even a tentative go ahead for new ones. But to some extent this can be seen to be in line with the Kyoto Protocol Agreement (adopted way back in 1997 but only coming into force in 2005) on reducing Green House Gases as Nuclear Power Plants, don't add these to the atmosphere.

So going back to Nuclear Power is one thing, but why the reversal on Solar and Wind Power?
The answer is, it appears simple they don't deliver on a cost effective basis. The cost of subsidising them, now and in the future, compared with their contribution to the country's energy requirements makes even less sense than going back to Nuclear. The Dutch haven't abandoned renewable energy, but have taken a view of what is cost effective and productive versus what is Green, expensive, inefficient and doesn't deliver.

So how does this affect the UK. Well as those who know me are aware I ceased my membership to Green Peace UK over their anti-nuclear power stance (one of the co-founders of Green Peace now views Nuclear Power as an essential element in the future - 40 years too late). As with Transport, the UK (unlike France) has never had a long term energy strategy that would gradually evolve over decades implementing a consistent approach to the country's energy requirements using a mix of Nuclear, 'Clean Coal' and Renewables, including something the Dutch cannot unitise, large scale Hydro Electric generation as in the Highlands. Plus the use of Wind Turbines where both sensible and effective (after all the first UK Wind Turbine went into operation on the Orkney Islands in 1951) and finally Wave Power (Solar is hardly something we in the UK could sensibly rely on, even less than the Dutch).  But instead successive UK Governments have played with Energy Planning based on purely political expediency rather than thinking beyond the next general election, or in some cases by-election. As with Transport, the lack of a cohesive Energy Policy is an indictment of the incompetence of generations of Politicians from the mid-1950's.

So where now for the UK?
Firstly follow the Dutch lead and abandon the EU target for renewables
Secondly have a cross party standing committee of cabinet and shadow cabinet members but including other parties with elected MPs. The 'Political Committee to be advised by a Technical Committee of Experts on Energy Planning, Generation, Production, Distribution and just as importantly Research (Fusion, Oil/Gas Extraction, etc), covering not just electrical power, but coal, oil and gas. To produce and Energy Master Plan to provide a cohesive Energy Policy starting in the near term but extending several decades into the future. Once the Master Plan has been formulated, the Political and Technical Committees will oversee its implementation and continue to evolve the Master Plan as circumstances and energy requirements change and technology improves.
This approach minimises 'Energy being a Political Football' and looks at what the Nation requires not what Politician think might keep them in Power. Although Parliament, will need to vote on some of the requirements of the Master Plan and its implementation as Policy, these votes should be viewed as of National, not Party importance.

I (mainly) agree with Bob Crowe of the RMT on SAR Privatisation

In one of my recent posts on Help Save Our Forests I included the following Paragraph:

The slow and almost covert sale of National assets to Private and indeed
often foreign ownership by successive Governments has been going on for
far too long. But this is not just a privatisation too far, but a
disgraceful act and needs to be stopped.

Well another planned privatisation has been causing me extreme irritation, but not quite enough to blog on (after all I am an Idle Man) has been the plan to transfer the Helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) currently run by the RAF, Royal Navy and the Maritime & Coastguard Agency to a Private Consortium. The fact that the currently the whole process has been thrown into disarray by irregularities in the bidding process by the preferred contractor Soteria, only delays the Governments Plan, which started under the Labour Government in 2006.

The current SAR Helicopter Fleet does require replacement, and therefore new aircraft should be procured, but not by selling off the service to a Private contractor. I therefore in the unexpected position of almost totally agreeing with, Bob Crowe the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, when he was quoted as having said:

'This whole sordid and botched episode shows that the raw greed of the
private sector should never be allowed anywhere near life or death
rescue services on the high seas. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money
has been wasted and the whole plan should now be scrapped, not
shelved.’

The only things I would change in the above statement is to remove the words 'raw greed of the' and the words 'on the high seas'. So my plaglarised version of Bob Crowe's Statement would be:

'This whole sordid and botched episode shows that the private sector should never be allowed anywhere near life or death rescue services. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money
has been wasted and the whole plan should now be scrapped, not
shelved.’

The Search and Rescue Service should NEVER have been put out to contract and now the process has been halted, it should be abandoned and money made available over the next three years to replace the current fleet of SAR Sea Kings with S-92 heavy lift helicopters. Also plans should include increasing the number of Helicopters and SAR bases, not the gradual reduction seen over the last decade.