If Blair's lot [and all of his predecessors] had been really serious about alternative energy, the now looming need for taking the easy route BACK to nuclear generation would hardly have been necessary. He and his cohorts are part of the cretinous bunch who have deliberately knocked back any project that even hinted at damaging the vast fortunes of the fossil fuel barons and their must-be-protected shareholders. Windmills? Oh, goody! A pat on the back and a wee modicum of encouragement here will look good---only they know perfectly well that if the country was changed into a forest of windmills it still wouldn't come close to being energy-sufficient. Wind, y'se, is a low-density fluid. WATER is not. And Britain is surrounded by the stuff. Perhaps that's the real reason why, when an underfunded wave-power project was part-wrecked by heavy weather off the Scottish coast, it was left to be claimed by outside interests. The Irish picked up on it, and are progressing the project. We are left in the short term, because of greed and deliberate heel-dragging, with the nuclear route. The "pollution free" nuclear route. How damn' blind can a people be? Last time I camped on Arran I was warned "Don't drink that spring water--it's radio active!" And some hill farms in S.W.Scotland are STILL under stock-movement restriction after all the years have passed since Cherbobyl. Can anybody come up with any such example resulting from the use of the universally acknowledged filth of fossil fuel burning? If that form of generation is taboo, what makes additional nuke waste so desirable?
Or maybe it's related to the fact that Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station is being decommissioned;it is/was the only nuke station in the UK which produced bomb-making material. Maybe we should tell the Iranians-----