Nuclear Debate Revisited
I think it is time we looked again at the Nuclear issue.
Below you will see the arguements I presented in March 2007 and why I dislike Nuclear Power. In the Kent on Sunday, Nigel Farage has again argued very articularly about the need to act fast. And it is true we do need to act fast. Many of our Nuclear Power Stations will soon be life expired there is no life extension, that means lights out Great Britain. So again what are the alternatives.
Yes I agree with Nigel lets build some coal burning power stations they are far cleaner than they once were and Britain has alot of coal burried below them. Yes I again agree with Nigel Wind Farms are not the solution. The solution I believe is more energy efficient homes. Solar panels on roofs; Wind helical turbines on every house would be no more obvious than a chimney pot; water recyle of grey water and collection of rain should go into all new builds. Homes could be self sufficient Dick Strawbridge has proven that. So why do the Tories, Labour and the majority of UKIP members support Nuclear energy because that is what the energy providers and business are telling them. If we all had free energy they would be out of business we would all be better off but the providers would all collapse. You have now heard my opinion whats yours.
The Nuclear Energy Debate by Trevor Cooper UKIP Thanet South dated 15 March 2007
For those of you who are aware the UKIP policy division has agreed to accept Nuclear Power as Party Policy.
I personally will not support this policy and my reasons are as follows: -
1. Health and Safety
If we are to carry out a simple risk assessment, as all good business’ would, one ways the likely hood of an accident, in this case extremely unlikely, against the effects if an accident should it occur. If an accident did occur the worse case scenario is mass death and destruction and Nuclear fallout effects nationwide and effecting many generations.
2. Running Cost
It has been argued that the running cost are cheaper but this is only true when the closed down cost are removed from the equation the true cost are far greater than conventional fossil fuels, or am I wrong? (The news reported this week that coal is cheaper 14 /01/ 08)
3. Corporate Greed
If we follow the path of building Nuclear Power Stations then the house owners and business too are Dependent on their provision. Making large corporate profits.
The alternatives are simple Solar panels in roofs wind turbine on roofs empowering people to be less dependent. The power providers do not wish this to happen because we win and they lose.
Let’s not bow to corporate greed lets give back some freedom for the people of the United Kingdom.
I would be very interested in hearing other views on the subject and I will be submitting views on other matter shortly.
Thanks
Trevor Cooper.
|
|
I agree with you up to a point Trevor, but I feel that you’ve ignored the cost aspect a little. Sadly, the reason that we have centralised control and corperate funding is the excessive cost of the infrastructure. Companies require a profit to justify their existence so it would seem a little unreasonable to deny them that, although how much profit could, I agree, be examined (and reduced). To follow the energy efficient home route would involve a very high outlay from home owners which, whilst they may be able to recoop it over time, would be likely to be beyond the means of most in the first place - even if, say the government, where to lend people the money, the repayments would simply replace, not remove the payments to the power companies.
In terms of nuclear power, the cost, of both construction and closing down, be covered by the power companies.
Whilst you may argue that the companies would have to raise the cost of power to pay for it, thereby effecting the consumer, I’m not sure that I wouldn’t still prefer this to government loans to individuals (if the current taxation model is anything to go by).
So, to conclude, I don’t disagree with your conclusions, but I feel that the measures you propose won’t practically materialise for some time to come, whereas nuclear power presents a, relatively, safe and clean answer to global warming and to our countries power needs now.
Comment by Joel — January 15, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Thank you Joel I can not dispute your logic. You could say we have left it too late to go down the path of each house being made energy efficent and that free energy is only for those who can afford the initial cost. I believe B&Q were installing the propeller version of the wind turbine for about £1.8k and I think it looks terrible. You also have to apply for planning permission too and there’s no certainty that permission would be granted.
Thank you for your point of view.
Comment by Bob — January 17, 2008 @ 10:28 pm