Fact and Fiction

Thoughts about a funny old world, and what is real, and what is not. Comments are welcome, but please keep them on topic.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Blair says nuclear choice needed

A BBC news item entitled Blair says nuclear choice needed reports that

Tony Blair says "controversial and difficult" decisions will have to be taken over the need for nuclear power to tackle the UK energy crisis.

The prime minister told the Liaison Committee, made up of the 31 MPs who chair Commons committees, any decision will be taken in the national interest.

That raises much hollow laughter in those who subscribe to the conspiracy theory of life.

The message is clear that the decision has already been taken to build new nuclear power stations. This much is obvious from the stark fact that most of the current generation of nuclear power stations is nearing the end of its life, and we are also committed to reducing CO2 emissions (which nuclear power stations can do), and we have not made sufficient effort to invest in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy (which also reduce CO2 emissions), aaand we have a nuclear weapons programme that we want to support.

On the nuclear weapons issue, I'll bet Trident isn't the last generation of such weapons, because as long as someone can throw a nuke at us we will retain the ability to throw one back at them. That's the logic, and I don't see another credible way out of the dilemma.

All of this points towards the absolute necessity for keeping a large nuclear industry going on for the forseeable future.

Frankly, I am amazed at the pretence and games that Blair and his acolytes play, when it is so transparently obvious what is really going on.

Nuclear power? Unfortunately, we've got no other choices left open to us!

2 Comments:

At 2 December 2005 at 00:49, Blogger Dennis Dale said...

It seems to me the one last legitimate complaint against nuclear power is the issue of waste and what to do with it. Unfortunately I don't see where anyone has made any headway on that front, leaving us with the specter of an ever growing supply of spent fuel rods requiring an indefinite period of containment. Still, I agree with you that while it's less than ideal, it's the least onerous answer to the need for clean burning fuel.

 
At 2 December 2005 at 19:28, Blogger Steve said...

We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner, where we face the Catch-22 of nuclear waste/weapons/etc versus global warming.

On balance, the lesser of the two evils is the nuclear option, because at least we can then potentially control how events unfold. Unfortunately, on the downside, the worst possible outcome of the nuclear option is even worse than what global warming could do to the planet.

Are you a gambling man?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home