I agree, investing the money in Nuclear Fission or more speculatively geothermal, Fusion or Thorium would be better.
The UK is having more than enough trouble getting its act together to finance and replace the nuclear plants that are being decommissioned.
Modular reactors (SMR's) will almost certainly play a role in a post fossil fuel energy mix ,but there's no getting away from the urgency of the situation we're in and the fact that wind turbines are relatively mature technologies that are already
price competitive. How much of 'the money' would you be happy to invest in
speculative technologies that are showing very little sign of becoming a commercial reality any time soon?
Had this kind of
research work had been properly funded and really ambitiously pursued by successive governments over the last 40 years or so, then maybe we'd be closer to getting results but they haven't been and there's no realistic sign of getting there any time soon.
Everyone would love a magic bullet solution and maybe Jeb Bush's boffin in the
garage will have a eureka moment...but for the time being, like it or not (and I understand why many don't), wind is cheap, deliverable and an important part of the near term future of low carbon energy generation.
I have 4 turbines being constructed on my local patch and I'm none too happy about it as the habitat they're being built right next to is (regionally) very rare and it hosts a large wintering population of hen harriers, short eared owls and great grey shrike. These turbines could have been built in a far less sensitive area (extensive agricultural landscapes) but without the kind of clout that an organisation such as the RSPB could have offered (the LPO aren't quite as influential) the planning authorities prioritised local aesthetic amenity over ecological sensitivity.
I think that the RSPB's stance on this issue is realistic and ultimately far more effective in protecting sensitive habitats than a blanket 'no' to all turbines or ignoring the low carbon energy issue entirely.