BS: New UK Nuclear Power?

Subject: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:46 PM

I don't belive it! BBC story

It would appear that Blair is about a couragous, unpopular but sensible and necessary decision, and is ordering a large expansion of Nuclear power production in Britian.

I never though I'd say this, but well done to him.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:52 PM

Nuclear power can be kept 'clean'. Only question is 'will it'? Besides, it is small potatoes when compared with some of the bio/chemical warefare stuff that Britain has been involved with. Power generated by nuclear plants is certainly friendlier to the environment than many traditional fuels. (I know about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, btw. I am also aware that about half (200 or so nuclear plants are not 'up to code' anymore).) Good choice I think, however, I don't live downwind from a plant, so it's easy for me to say.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 06:01 PM

These new ones are so safe - that there are plans to build this one in Knightsbridge and use cooling water from the Serpentine.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:44 PM

Why not Westminster, next door to the House of Commons? Oh....Silly me, drawing the water from the Thames would make the plant unusable for ten thousand years.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM

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-----

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:15 AM

You nailed it, Boab.

How do we know that they aren't making nuclear weapons?

Besides that, what makes people think that nuclear power is the answer? Have you seen the nuclear power fields in France? Not very pretty.

...and what can be done about nuclear waste?

There is only one ethical choice - wind, water, thermal energy etc. and solar power + emission control, plus the will.

The E.U. must address this issue and get on with it. Canada, too. (I wish Canada would join the EU)

The U.S.A. has done nothing. In fact Bush has killed most alternate energy plans.

There is a solution and its not too late but in the meantime, lets not make mistakes that we cannot rectify.

Its time politicians wake up and realize that alternate energy is not only the best choice, its the only choice.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:47 AM

The Primary problem is that the Earth's human population is exceeding the natural capacity of the Earth to absorb the normal levels of pollution and damage produced.

Fewer People!, even if it means fewer Folk Musicians... I'm prepared for some small sacrifices in the long term good of Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:14 AM

What do you get from nuclear power? HUGE building contracts, that the government are so politically tangled with that they daren't let them fail at any cost. And plutonium at the end as a bonus. You don't get that by building windmills or wave machines.

Where will the waste go? Last time they were looking, there was a strong rumour that the ideal place in the UK turned out to be just by Balmoral. If only it had been Mansfield, they would have done it. We could put it on show in the Tate Modern.

Who is going to be running these power stations? Sellafield are the experts, I suppose, as long as we can get them to refrain from lying about the certification. Then there's always Jarvis and Balfour Beatty, who ran the railway maintenance for us so well.

Good job we closed all those deep mines, a new generation of coal- fired power stations would have been just as destructive as all the gas capacity that we have now, and we have the added pleasure of importing all the gas and depending on Kyrghistan to keep supplying us.

You can't say Blair doesn't listen now- he listens to ANY lobbyist with the prospect of fat directorships to pick from when he stops living next door to Gordon.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:15 AM

Mr Burns was right all along then?

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 05:00 AM

I don't know why Bunnahabhain sounds so suprised. I'd have expected no other conclusion from Bliar.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:20 AM

I sounded surprised for a couple of reasons.

1. Blair being prepared to do something important and unpopular with a large part of the popukation. Apart from the war, every other decision of his has had alot of support from either the Labour benches, or the country.

2. Blair doing something I agree with. Virtually every major decision he has made, I have disagreed with, and have marched aginst him on some.


It's not that Nuclear power is a good option, it's just that all the other viable otions are worse.


The major problem is we have no large scale way to store power, so we must be able to generate it to meet demand. So Solar and Wind, by definition intermittent sources, are out.

Wave and tidal power have alot of potential. Wave power could generate alot of useful power, assuming we spend enough money to get the basic engineering right. It will be centered on Nothern Scotland, which has the coastline and rough water. It has a very small population, so the transmission costs to somewhere useful will be significant.
   Tidal power is wonderful, and the UK has some very good sites, notably the Severn Esteury. Unfortunatly, Esteuries are some of our richest wildlife habitats, and a tidal power barrage destroys changes them hugely.

Hydro. We have many more site for hydro power in Britian than we use, mainly in smaller scale sites. Weirs and old water mills were where powewr for industry was once produced. We can do it again, and if it is done carefully, the impact on the enviroment is minimal.

Biomass. It would be a good solution, if only we had alot more land, or a lot less people. So we shall invade France, and Ireland. The extra space, and casulties may allow us to grow enough biomass to power the UK.

Gas. So the North sea is running Low. Where do we want to import it from? Russia? The Gulf? Unstable-dictaitorship-istan? What a prospect.

Coal. Great, We've got hundreds of years of supply of the stuff. Shame it's filthy, and most of it very expensive to get at.

Nuclear fission.. Well, we do have to import the fuel, but only from Canada, the US and Australia. And we need some places to put the stations. Next to the existing ones is good. And someone might manage to make fusion work, which just needs a water supply.

So, we can use renewables to generate a much larger proportion of our power than now, but we will need some large scale production still. The viable, reasonably secure options are coal or nuclear. Coal produces one set of enviromental problems we, at the moment cannot manage, whilst Nuclear produces those we think we can.


P.s. anyone who just feels like saying Chernobyl, please PM me first.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:41 AM

Someone said it up there. You've bought into the "not many hurt" idea? I wonder what you'd make of the 25 sick kids that visit our village every year to get away from the legacy for a few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:52 AM

Many kids from the area come to Hinton, Alberta, also. Every year, and have been doing so for a long time. Dentists provide free work, nutritionists and doctors provide free time for the kids, and they get rides in fire trucks, police cars and generally have a very good time.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:06 AM

Peace - 21 Nov 05 - 05:52 PM

"Nuclear power can be kept 'clean'. Only question is 'will it'? Besides, it is small potatoes when compared with some of the bio/chemical warefare stuff that Britain has been involved with."

Huh?? The latter part of that refers to what exactly? To my certain knowledge, the UK and most European NATO countries have had absolutely nothing to do with BW/CW weapons since the very early 60's when the UK at least unilaterally renounced them.

GUEST,Boab - 22 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM

The decision to go ahead with nuclear energy should have been taken decades ago. To all those who advocate wind generation, the type of power generated by those monstrosities cannot produce 380v/440v 3-Phase, so in effect a windmill cannot even generate the electrical power required to manufacture one. While Britain may be surrounded by water, very little of it is of any use with regard to power generation (less than 70 miles if memory serves me correctly). A company I worked for a good while back were paid a tidy sum to look into the prospects.

The early UK designed and built nuclear reactors were Magnox reactors, we then gas to cooled but not 100% sure. Type now proposed I assume to be Pressurised Water Reactors - in effect the same sort of kettle that powers the UK's fleet of nuclear submarines.

I can remember going round Chapelcross with a school party, to make weapons grade stuff from the UK power stations you needed a 'fast-breeder' reactor - that was based on the power station at Dounray, part of that facility called HMS Vulcan. Other establishments linked to that programme were Harwell and Aldermaston.

dianavan - 22 Nov 05 - 02:15 AM

In response to your two questions:

"How do we know that they aren't making nuclear weapons?"

You do not get weapons grade material from a PWR that is why the US have been offering them to the North Koreans, they are purely for power generation. The French power stations may not look all that pretty, but I don't believe that was part of the design criteria, they do however produce cheap electricity, which leads to your second question.

"...and what can be done about nuclear waste?"

Same as they do now - reprocess it to make fuel rods for nuclear power stations.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:33 AM

To all those who advocate wind generation, the type of power generated by those monstrosities cannot produce 380v/440v 3-Phase, so in effect a windmill cannot even generate the electrical power required to manufacture one.

???

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

Can't it? Where does all the electricity produced go then?

This is from a page on wind generators:

" Design Choices in Generators and Grid Connection

Wind turbines may be designed with either synchronous or asynchronous generators, and with various forms of direct or indirect grid connection of the generator.
Direct grid connection mean that the generator is connected directly to the (usually 3-phase) alternating current grid.
Indirect grid connection means that the current from the turbine passes through a series of electric devices which adjust the current to match that of the grid. With an asynchronous generator this occurs automatically. "

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:51 AM

Found another site on wind farms here.... To quote:

The voltage levels are typically as follows:

    * Wind turbine: 480V, three phase
    * Wind farm ring main: 11kv, three phase
    * Local grid: 33k or 132 kV, three phase
    * Main grid distribution system: 132, 275 or 400kV, three phase
    * Secondary transmission system: 33, 66 or 132kV, three phase
    * Primary distribution system: 3.3, 6.6, 11 or 33kV, three phase
    * Local distribution system: 415 three phase or 240V single phase

Wonder what treebus' source is.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:59 AM

Teribus: "Huh?? The latter part of that refers to what exactly?"

Porton Down – A sinister air?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/
newsid_426000/426154.stm
Damning article on the secret chemical and biological weapons centre in Wiltshire.

Maybe this.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:11 AM

"Know Nukes"

I'm holding out hope for this: http://www.fusion.org.uk/st/

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:33 AM


Paul Burke - PM
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:47 AM

GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:51 AM

Thanks to those above for the information on wind turbines. My apologies to all, I stand corrected.

For Peace:

A Brief History Of Porton Down

It is eighty-five years since the "experimental ground" was set up at Porton Down to provide a proper scientific basis for the British use of chemical warfare, in response to the earlier German use of this means of war in 1915. Work at Porton started in March 1916. At the time, only a few cottages and farm buildings were scattered on the Downs at Porton and Idmiston.

By 1918 the original two huts had become a large hutted camp with 50 officers and 1,100 other ranks. Studies in the Great War mainly concerned the dissemination of chlorine and phosgene and, later, mustard gas. By May 1917 the focus for anti-gas defence and respirator development had moved from London to Porton Down.

After the Armistice, staff at Porton Down were reduced to a skeleton level. In 1919 the War Office set up the Holland Committee to consider the future of chemical warfare and defence. By 1920, the Cabinet agreed to the Committee's recommendation that work should continue at Porton Down and from that date a slow permanent building programme began coupled with the gradual recruitment of civilian scientists. By 1922, there were 380 servicemen, 23 scientific and technical civil servants and 25 "civilian subordinates". By 1925 the civilian staff had doubled.

Since its establishment in 1916 Porton Down has undergone several changes of title and responsibility:

Royal Engineers Experimental Station 1916-1929
Chemical Warfare Experimental Station (CWES) 1929-1930
Chemical Defence Experimental Station (CDES) 1930-1948
Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment (CDEE) 1948-1970
Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE) 1970-1991
Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) 1991-1995
Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) 1995-2001
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL),Porton Down 2001-


Between 1920 and the end of the Second World War, the main emphasis was on mustard gas and the multiplicity of problems attending both its use in war and the defence of the Services from this potent agent.

By 1926 the chemical defence aspects of Air Raid Precautions (ARP) for the civilian population was added to the Station's responsibilities. By 1938, the international situation was such that offensive chemical warfare research and development and the production of war reserve stocks of chemical warfare agents by the chemical industry was authorised by the Cabinet. Britain had ratified the 1925 Geneva Protocol in 1930 with reservations which permitted the use of chemical warfare agents only in retaliation. The principle remained extant until 1955-1956, when Britain abandoned a programme to modernise its retaliatory capability. Since then, the residual stocks of agents were destroyed and work at Porton Down has been solely in assessment of the hazards of chemical warfare and in defensive requirements.

Chemical warfare was not used by any nation during the Second World War but as Allied armies penetrated Germany, operational stockpiles of munitions and weapons were discovered which contained new chemical warfare agents; the highly toxic organophosphorous nerve agents, unknown to Britain and the Allies. The late 1940s and early 1950s saw research and development at Porton Down aimed at providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern nerve agent based capability and to develop specific means of defence against these agents. In the end these aims came to nothing on the offensive side because of the decision to abandon any sort of British chemical warfare capability. On the defensive side there were years of difficult work to develop the means of prophylaxis, therapy, rapid detection and identification, decontamination and more effective protection of the body against nerve agents, capable of exerting effects through the skin, the eyes and respiratory tract.

In the 1950s the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment became involved with the development of CS, a riot control agent, and took an increasing role in trauma and wound ballistics work. Both these facets of Porton Down's work had become more important because of the situation in Northern Ireland. In 1970 the Chemical Defence Establishment became the title of the senior establishment at Porton Down and remained for the next 21 years. Preoccupation with defence against the nerve agents continued but in the 1970s and 1980s the Establishment was also concerned with studying reported chemical warfare by Iraq against Iran and against its own Kurdish population. Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the problems increased, culminating in active operational support of British Forces in the Gulf region. After the Gulf cease-fire the establishment continued to provide technical support for the United Nations Special Commission set-up to oversee the destruction of the Iraqi capability to use nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. This continued until 1999 when Iraq withdrew co-operation from the Commission.

Throughout the last few decades the Establishment has also provided technical support for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, whose signatories have agreed to renounce and destroy all chemical warfare capabilities and to continue their interest solely in defensive research and development. In the twenty-first century the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is of considerable concern, as is that of terrorist use. From 1940 Porton was also the centre of British interest in biological warfare and defence against it. Following the start of the Second World War a highly secret and independent group was set up at Porton Down by the War Cabinet, with a mandate to investigate the reality of biological warfare by experiment and, if established, to develop a means of retaliation in kind in the event of the use of biological warfare against Britain and its Allies. The group, known as Biology Department, Porton, initially consisted of less than a dozen medics, scientists and technicians. The staff grew quickly but never exceeded about 50 people of diverse origins, including several American bacteriologists commissioned as Army and Navy officers. By 1946, the name of the wartime group had become the Microbiological Research Department. In 1951 the Department had moved to a vast building adjacent to what had, by then, become the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment. In 1957 the Department became the Microbiological Research Establishment.

By 1955-1956 research at both Porton Down Establishments had become solely defensive and Britain abandoned moves to establish any offensive capabilities. Work continued on biological defence and an increasing amount of civil microbiological work. By the 1970s it was decided that a reduced programme of biological defence work should be started by a small team transformed from the Establishment to the Chemical Defence Establishment and that the Microbiological Research Establishment should be placed under the aegis of a civil authority. The Establishment closed as a Ministry of Defence facility on 31 March 1979 and re-opened the next day as the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) within the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). In April 1994, CAMR moved from PHLS centre to the Microbiological Research Authority (MRA), reporting to the Department of Health and still continuing the programme in civil microbiological research started in 1979. Thus, by 1991 the Chemical Defence Establishment became the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and was one of the six new Defence Support Agencies. In 1995, the Establishment became part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), an executive agency of MOD evolved in 1994 from proposals of the "Front Line First" Defence Cost Studies. In 2001, DERA split into two organisations: QinetiQ, a private company, and DSTL (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), which remains an agency of MOD. Porton Down is now known as DSTL, Porton Down.

NB The above text is taken from the article "Porton Down: a brief history" by G B Carter, Porton Down's official historian. A more in-depth account can be found in Mr Carter's book Chemical and Biological at Porton Down 1916-2000

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Mr Fox
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:25 PM

"Well, we do have to import the fuel, but only from Canada, the US and Australia."

For the moment. If that supply dries up the only other governments with uranium to sell are dead dodgy.

"And we need some places to put the stations. Next to the existing ones is good."

Dungeness and Sizewell are both next door to nature reserves. I can imagine the outcry (and will be joining in).

And the question remains: where are we going to put the waste? An ever-increasing pile of stuff that is going to be dangerous for centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM

Nuclear fission is all about money. Here's an interesting site I found recently that is exploring an option that, if it's viable, will be much less expensive, much safer, and that will not the produce radio-active waste that fission reacters produce (and that nobody has figured out what to do with besides dropping it on people in the form of bombs).

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:29 PM

Forgot the link...

http://www.focusfusion.org/what/whatis.html

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Keef
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 04:53 PM

Nuclear Power is merely a byproduct of weapons production.
In the 1950s Britain carried out nuclear testing in Australia and scattered plutonium across Maralinga with little regard for the "colonials" and zero regard for the "natives".
Expansion of the nuclear industry will inevitably lead to greater availability of weapons grade material.
The only way of reducing the radioactivity of the waste is by the passage of time ..say 4.5 Billion years.
The US has come up with a partial solution, make "depleted" uranium ammunition and scatter it across a foreign country like Iraq or even Australia (training exercises Shoalwater Bay Queensland).
If a fraction of the money that was spent on nuclear research and gas/petroleum resarch was spent on alternative energy production was spent on alternatives then clean safe power would be here allready.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: GUEST,BOAB
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:20 AM

Teribus---Chapelcross station produced weapons grade material.
Dounreay was among the earliest attempts in the U.K. at building a nuke-generating installation. The reason it was built at Dounreay was simply because any attempt to have it farther from London would have meant wading out towards Orkney. I was one of two Engineering students in my West of Scotland college who were offered jobs at either of the two above mentioned stations at the completion of our studies. The other guy took up the offer; I didn't wish to be involved.
   And I do not subscribe to the "hideous" view of the windmills. As an engineer, I see things of beauty. This I admit, is in the "eye of the beholder". They are so unlikely to have substantial effect that the fossil fuel lobbyists are even seen encouraging their use. But the energy offshore should not be ignored. It may well be expensive in the beginning, but it is virtually limitless---and many times more efficient than wind power.
I have little doubt that we are destined to live in the shadow of nuclear generation, with all of its deadly legacy and its inevitable use in making WMDs--but I also hope and pray that the fight for truly pollution-free and renewable energy continues--and intensifies.

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: 12string growler
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:19 PM

Paul Burke seems to think that we have large gas reserves. In that case why has the wholesale price of gas DOUBLED during this little cold snap in the UK?
I work at a French owned 2000 mega watt coal fired power station in the UK. I am NOT proud of that fact but it pays the bills. The company that owns it has spent many millions of pounds installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation equipment to clean up our airborne discharge. it has a claimed efficieny of better than 95%. Other coal stations are doing the same. My employer is hoping to build a combined cycle gas turbine power station. After them telling us that there is a gas shortage, that seems very short sighted to me.

Nuclear is not the answer, not until the waste can be neutralised totally. Wind power takes up too much land to be totally practical, how many windmills to replace my place of work at something like ten Mwatts each? It's about time some decent research was applied to Clean Burn technology with coal, and lets get the British miner back to work cos there's still loads of coal under there. We may have to pay a bit more to get at the so called un-economical bits. May-be that would make us think about how much energy we all waste.

The Americans have had it too cheep for too long and look how wastefull they are. Sign on to the Kyoto agreemaent G W Bush, your land may not be the dirtiest but by looking after the pennies (cents), the pounds (dollars) look afters themselves and your example might just nudge other countries into signing onto Kyoto too.

PB please don't take this as a dig at you, it is not meant as that. Its not often that a power worker gets the chance to vent off.

12st g

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:10 AM

Nuclear Waste, don't you people in the UK have mountains like us here in the US, we just pick up a mountain, you know, like a rug & sweep it all under it. Opps, sorry, we've been trying to do that plan here but it's not working out. Sorry, back to the blackboard or you can follow our lead, lust do it & figure it out later. Don't you have bigger mountains & many much more vastly under populated areas where you are tha we here in the US do, so you can just hide it for say an undestrubed 10,000 or so years, maybe just dumping it off shore near where the rigs are is a better 2nd choice?. We'll sell you some & shipping & handling costs are on us, a freebie, can you stand it?

Wait, wind, water & solar are far more dangerous & bying from their owners would be like relying on an outsider, very costly. R&D in these areas would be like throwing good money after bad, just like tossing shit into the sea, no oil company would throw their good shit into the ocean just to pollute & the same goes for all the other Nuke & Fossil plants. You can't say that they're only in it for the buck & that they don't live up to the morals that are expected of them.

I chuckle to myself & think "What Were They Thinking" Chernobyl in the UK? No, what makes the UK any more protected, because you're not Russian? Where the hell would they go? Couldn't get worst, Oh, Oh here's comes, OH GOD, we don't get Tornados in this part of the world, do we.

Silly me "WHAT WAS I THINKING"

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: New UK Nuclear Power?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:21 AM

"Paul Burke seems to think that we have large gas reserves"

Where the heck did you get that, 12string? The North Sea reserves are practically gone. I said most of the generating capacity is now gas. That's why we have to import it from dodgy countries. And coal for the residue of old style power stations too.

No, the hostility to alternative power comes largely from the consideration that there won't be any huge construction contracts to be got out of them in the short term. That means no bribes (sorry, directorships) for politicians.

As for saving energy, where's the political appeal in asking people to consume LESS?