that wasn't the impression I got.
We've got this thing arse-backwards, and the more I work in architecture the more downhearted I get. There are big gains to be made doing very simple things to older houses - instead of which we're doing wildly complicated things to new houses, which don't work when the occupants have the bad taste to open the windows. We're obsessing about recycling timber for timber frame houses, and then building them out in the suburbs with two car spaces in front. And, sadly, we're not making much of an impact on private car use, although this last few months in London has been encouraging.
The economic viability of sustainable energy has to be measured against oil prices now and in five years - or our least silly guess about what oil prices will be in five years. And we have to think about security - there's a lot to be said for having energy you don't have to buy from Russia.
The article is a bit parochial. Our purchasing power is sucking water out of the aquifers in Uzbekistan and the southern USA. Those Chinese power stations are not being built to power heating in Shanghai - they're powering steel mills and factories that send product to Europe. But, then again, given that we can't get the easy stuff at home right, it's probably best not even to think about the global picture.
), but this is just weird. Nuclear came out lengths ahead of anything else. And we don't care about retrospectively installing ground pump heating systems in Victorian semis, what we need is a readily available, plentiful and cheap supply of power to take us forward.
