kernow

As long as we don't go back to the smoke blackened towns and cities which I well remember from my childhood in the late forties early fifties I'm not too worried. In my opinion global warming has got nothing to do with our modern lifestyle, but is more to do with periodic warming and cooling of the planet which has happened on and off every few thousand years. Global warming has been a "Godsend" for a lot of World governments (and the Green party) who with the help of a few "respected experts" :roll: scare the population witless to "persuade" the sheeple to fork out huge amounts of money on "green taxes" In my opinion we should be building Nuclear power stations with great speed before "Johny Foreigner" cuts off our energy supplies. Until a viable option appears, nuclear is the way forward if we wish for Britain to remain independent. For those worried about storing nuclear wast over long periods of time, I say why worry we'll probable we wiped out anyway either by Islamic fundamentalists or a bloody great Meteor! :shock:

Hartlepool

Or the snide Communist European Union in a sneak attack on us. :evil:

euromutiny

I am against nuclear power, not because of the safety screaming of mad eco-fascists, but because of costs (they will need subsidy from my taxes) and I (like most) wouldn't want to live near one (it's therefore hypocritical for me to support building them). How many of you live next to Sellafield, Sizewell or Dungeness? I am not a NIMBY (not in my back yard), but I am NIABY (not in anyone's back yard). I love Britain too much to see it ruined by building.

The waste is the main problem. If a normal firm shuts up shop, there's no waste, if a nuclear firm closes we have lots to clear up. Who pays? Happy Mr Taxpayer! Indeed Mr Taxpayer is expected to subsidise the firm anyway - that's not a free market. Plus the risk of terrorists getting nuclear material, the locals blighted by the power plants...it's really not the best of ideas.

Coal power, especially clean coal technology, and micro-generation at a the home level (solar, wind etc) are better answers. Cheaper, safer, less ugly. I don't like windmills, but it's better than nuclear power plants.

Energy security is a big issue, but we can become energy self-sufficient as a country without nuclear. You'll find being pro-nuclear a big vote loser.

No party is 100% right for anyone, but protecting the countryside is very important to me. What is UKIPs view on the greenbelt or green field development? We need answers soon if the party is to keep getting news coverage as breaking the faux-green consensus.

g hall

I'm on the Suffolk coast 20 miles from Sizewell - As long as nobody from Chernobyl or 3 mile island is employed there I'm happy ( Both these incidents involved idiots playing the fool ). I'd rather have that then the cr@p from coal fired stations and the problems coal mining brings - more miners die in China in a week then have died directly from a UK nuclear power plant accident ever!

As regards security, shoot the intruders and then ask questions there are some places you shouldn't demonstrate - Whitehall and 10 Downing St are OK though

Nuclear waste - 80,000 cubic metres (according to CORWM 2005) slightly bigger then a football stadium I would guesstimate How big is the UK?
So vitrify it and stack it, then put up a big sign that says "enter here you will die" surround the outside with razor wire, guards etc etc, Less of a problem then the slag heap at Aberfan

The problem is the Anti nuclear campaign is allowed to get away with lies (rather like "man-made global warming")

If the absolute science was discussed without hysteria then you might be surprised at what you thought where truths are complete bo11ocks

kernow

Hartlepool

The anti-Nuclear campaign is very strongly supported by the Oil and Gas moguls.

It's a great pity that these two are not as safe as the Nuclear Industry is.

They are volatile plants and will explode at the first chance of a mistake.

Just take a look at their history wether it's in this Country or overseas,in exploration,recovery,transfer,Refinage or trunking,they fail every time in all of them,(but don't tell anyone or you won't get your backhanders.)

If they are so worried about GW,solve it by making big reductions in OIL and Gas use.(I don't believe we are into manmade GW by the way.)

We can do it.

Bring back coal mining and see what happens.(They won't allow it tho.)

They are all criminals,our mines could have been saved but the pump-outs were stopped and they flooded.

As far as I'm concerned,all those mines are still there for a rainy day if needed by us,as should the Oil and Gas be.

euromutiny

Clean coal involves first minimising carbon produced through selection of coal and efficient burning. The emmissions are mostly condensed and then pumped into the underground caverns caused through oil/gas extraction. When filled, it's concreted in. Basically trapped and corked beneath the North Sea bedrock. As a bonus this process makes it possible and cheaper to extract the last oil/gas resources which are normally too hard to get thanks to the pressure from the emmissions.

A house can go 'carbon neutral' by using solar and 'earth source heat pumps' fairly easily. Many could in fact contribute to the national grid. Factories and trading estates could easily build full size windmills.

I am not after a Rambler's countryside, I want it to be useful for food and biofuels too. To me this is protecting the countryside (especially bringing back orchards etc). That said, we should encourage more hedgerows as well. We could be self-sufficient in most foods, but bananas aren't really our speciality...

As far as UKIP is concerned, the party's philosophy is of individuals and libertarianism really, free marketeers, but with a socially conservative touch supporting traditional values and British identity. Having nuclear plants foistered on people fits with neither libertarianism or social conservatism. Subsidising nuclear isn't either.

UKIP should favour more micro-generation, no subsidy for any power generation, and opening up the electricity grid to new providers (making a more competitive market). Then all that's needed is for major planning permission to be granted for offshore windfarms (to then be sold off on the open market), for the expansion of coal/gas power plants, and maybe for tidal dams. Supply and demand will find the ballance; the market will provide.

PatrioticBriton

It has never occured. The only catastrophic accident of a NEP was the Chernobyl accident, which was the fault of the USSR authorities.

One accident has also occured in the US, 27 years ago, but no one died the.

Hartlepool

I know PB,that is the message we have to put to those who decry Nuclear.

euromutiny

As I have said, it's the waste and cost that makes it impossible for me to support nuclear power. It needs subsidy and I am against subsidising most things. The market will provide if we let it, and it won't be nuclear.