26 April 2005

Do we need nuclear?

More nuke power debate. It's an interesting sleight of hand going on in these 'debate' pieces. On th eone hand they talk about how renewables are only £% of the present market, then how Nuke is 20% and how do we make up the difference. Then, without apparently noticing the irony we are told aboutt "the crippling cost of new nuclear power stations - estimated at about �10bn pounds over a period of about 20 years." without the corresponding thought that -just thinking out loud here- if we invested the same amount of government [that's your and my ] money in renewables over the next 20 years, including getting proper building regulations, encouraging domestic wind solar and other electricity generation we could achieve I suspect far more than nuclear would, we wouldn't have such a legacy of undisposable toxic waste, we would be more secure [it's harder to target decentralised power in a terrorist strike] and politically freer [just think about the civil liberties implications of keeping all that valuable nuclear material safe from terrorists as it zips around the country -if most of us knew what powers the Nuke police have we'd be very afraid]



No, friends, we're being softened up to hand over our liberties and our grandchildren's futures to something quite unsavoury.

Time to get the cute yellow sunshine badge out. Nuclear Power? -No thank you.

BBC NEWS | Election 2005 | Election 2005 | Analysis: Do we need nuclear?:

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...