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:
Post a Comment