Quote Originally Posted by LaxtonLad View Post
The future has to be nuclear power whose only drawback is the disposal of the radioactive waste, not a problem if it's shot out into the cosmic void, a one -way trip to Jupiter? Or Australia? It's not beyond the possibility of future science finding a way to make it useful or at least neutral, not that it would matter if it was Australia, or the USA.

There's no pollution, it's cleaner, a lower cost of production and safer than any alternative. We could have led the world if we had started it in the early 199o's when Maggie shut the pits.
This country has had an ambivolent attitude and approach to nuclear since the 1950's. Instead of building on the expertise we again showed ourselves to be leaders in the creation of technology and short sighted idiots in taking advantage of it, much as we found ourselves with football (thought I'd throw that in seeing as this is footymad). Other nations have a longer term view in their planning of major infrastructure whether it be power stations, railways, roads and not doubt other facilities. Maggie of course, in her desire to balance the books (short termism) took the route of the dash for gas. And like coal, it one day would run out or become undesirable.

So as I write our own nuclear is providing just under 10% of our requirements, wind less than 1%, no solar of course, CCGT (Gas turbine) 57%, Biomass (not green) ~5% and then another 5% imported from the excess nuclear from France and 3% from excess Norwegian hydro. A few other bits. In my view our energy security is pretty poor.