Taunton should 'grasp' Hinkley Point opportunities, say business leaders

Midas chief executive Alan Hope and Steve Hindley.

Midas chief executive Alan Hope and Steve Hindley.

First published in News

BUSINESS leaders from the Taunton area have been told about the work of the body charged with overseeing strategic growth in the region.

Steve Hindley, chairman of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, addressed guests at an event organised by Midas Group at the Museum of Somerset.

Mr Hindley, also chairman of Midas, said that in contrast to the large staff and massive budget of the South West Regional Development Agency, a forerunner of the LEP, the new organisation had four staff and £500,000 to spend.

He said the organisation aimed to set the right strategy for public and private sector organisations and would negotiate and bid for government funding for projects, including improving rail and road infrastructure to and through the region.

On dualling the A303, he said: “I refuse to retire until that’s built and finished.”

He added: “The Government has admitted we have been grossly underfunded for the last 30 years.”

He later told the County Gazette that Taunton should grasp the opportunities offered by the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station development but was unable to give any further details about how the LEP viewed Taunton’s place in the region’s development.

He also called on local businesses and organisations to come forward with ideas the LEP could take to government.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:56am Tue 27 May 14

TauntonBloke29 says...

Too right. Bridgwater are leaps and bounds ahead on that front. We need to think about how to jump on this bandwagon.
Too right. Bridgwater are leaps and bounds ahead on that front. We need to think about how to jump on this bandwagon. TauntonBloke29
  • Score: 4

1:38pm Tue 27 May 14

TauntonSucks says...

So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud.....
So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud..... TauntonSucks
  • Score: -9

7:13am Wed 28 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Well said TauntonSucks.
Well said TauntonSucks. GoingGreen
  • Score: -4

6:57pm Wed 28 May 14

Monument says...

If the tree huggers have their way we can be assured of peer perhaps 12-15 hours a day in the not too distant future. Nuclear power is a necessity and the jobs it will bring are to be welcomed.
If the tree huggers have their way we can be assured of peer perhaps 12-15 hours a day in the not too distant future. Nuclear power is a necessity and the jobs it will bring are to be welcomed. Monument
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Thu 29 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Monument wrote:
If the tree huggers have their way we can be assured of peer perhaps 12-15 hours a day in the not too distant future. Nuclear power is a necessity and the jobs it will bring are to be welcomed.
Ah yes, the ignorant generation. Embarrassing.
[quote][p][bold]Monument[/bold] wrote: If the tree huggers have their way we can be assured of peer perhaps 12-15 hours a day in the not too distant future. Nuclear power is a necessity and the jobs it will bring are to be welcomed.[/p][/quote]Ah yes, the ignorant generation. Embarrassing. GoingGreen
  • Score: -2

4:08pm Thu 29 May 14

Monument says...

Not ignorant just realistic with no desire to return to the middle ages.
Not ignorant just realistic with no desire to return to the middle ages. Monument
  • Score: 2

4:47pm Thu 29 May 14

Mi_Coc says...

There is no green solution that is complete as nuclear.

You can build wind farms and barrages but locals will object and the barrages have ecological impact on sea life.

If we do find our energy source will we be left without it. Russia is increasingly volatile and we will run out of our natural resources shortly.
There is no green solution that is complete as nuclear. You can build wind farms and barrages but locals will object and the barrages have ecological impact on sea life. If we do find our energy source will we be left without it. Russia is increasingly volatile and we will run out of our natural resources shortly. Mi_Coc
  • Score: 1

7:05pm Thu 29 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one.
Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one. GoingGreen
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Thu 29 May 14

Jamesey says...

TauntonSucks wrote:
So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud.....
Your user name says it all. Have you got anything positive to say about anything?

We should welcome Hinkley C and the jobs and business opportunities it will provide. Nuclear power isn't a perfect energy source, but what is? We need a balance of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewable sources to guarantee energy security and give us the energy that we need.

Renewables alone are not yet technologically advanced enough to provide this on their own. Listen to the Scientists and Engineers, not the "pie in the sky" wing of the green lobby, who appear to have posted above.
[quote][p][bold]TauntonSucks[/bold] wrote: So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud.....[/p][/quote]Your user name says it all. Have you got anything positive to say about anything? We should welcome Hinkley C and the jobs and business opportunities it will provide. Nuclear power isn't a perfect energy source, but what is? We need a balance of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewable sources to guarantee energy security and give us the energy that we need. Renewables alone are not yet technologically advanced enough to provide this on their own. Listen to the Scientists and Engineers, not the "pie in the sky" wing of the green lobby, who appear to have posted above. Jamesey
  • Score: 0

6:31am Fri 30 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Jamesey wrote:
TauntonSucks wrote:
So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud.....
Your user name says it all. Have you got anything positive to say about anything?

We should welcome Hinkley C and the jobs and business opportunities it will provide. Nuclear power isn't a perfect energy source, but what is? We need a balance of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewable sources to guarantee energy security and give us the energy that we need.

Renewables alone are not yet technologically advanced enough to provide this on their own. Listen to the Scientists and Engineers, not the "pie in the sky" wing of the green lobby, who appear to have posted above.
Questioning whether or not nuclear energy is a complete green solution is hardly pie in the sky. Ask the scientists and engineers so speak of. I certainly listen to them, as should others.
[quote][p][bold]Jamesey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TauntonSucks[/bold] wrote: So basically we need a new nuclear power station to get the roads upgraded and it's all about the money. Yet more pro-nuclear coverage from the Gazette, pandering to the wishes of big business/government (same thing) and fulfilling its role in keeping the readership in the dark about the downsides of this particularly ugly industry. You must be so proud.....[/p][/quote]Your user name says it all. Have you got anything positive to say about anything? We should welcome Hinkley C and the jobs and business opportunities it will provide. Nuclear power isn't a perfect energy source, but what is? We need a balance of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewable sources to guarantee energy security and give us the energy that we need. Renewables alone are not yet technologically advanced enough to provide this on their own. Listen to the Scientists and Engineers, not the "pie in the sky" wing of the green lobby, who appear to have posted above.[/p][/quote]Questioning whether or not nuclear energy is a complete green solution is hardly pie in the sky. Ask the scientists and engineers so speak of. I certainly listen to them, as should others. GoingGreen
  • Score: 3

1:10pm Fri 30 May 14

TauntonSucks says...

Don't agree with what I say? The Gazette IS fulfilling it's role in keeping the readership in the dark about the dangers of nuclear and I can prove it - just type "Hinkley" into the search bar at the top of the page and you will see all the articles the Gazette has historically produced concerning Hinkley. Every article that comes up is positive or throws positive spin onto negative stories and this is not an accident. This paper, like just about every other paper in the land, is used as a tool to control the public mind and perceptions......tha
t is its role. Judging by the feedback left on here about Hinkley, they're doing a very good job. In the wake of Fukushima which is still polluting the world to this day, people should be outraged at the prospect of more nuclear in this country and in this area, but they're not. Especially when there is a possible history of tsunami occurrence in the Severn - not confirmed but likely and definitely possible.

We should not blindly welcome Hinkley C and we should not allow our minds to be tricked by the prospect of more jobs and money. We should be seeking to join arms with forward thinking nations like Germany in becoming nuclear free in the not too distant future.

The nuclear industry IS very ugly too. Are you aware that thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste lies in steel barrels corroding on the seabed all around the UK coastline, including the Channel, because for decades that is how they got rid of it.....just chucking it into the sea because it was too expensive to do anything else (it's all about the money, remember)? Thought not. But that's OK they don't do that anymore......instead they just pump it into the sea directly via pipelines! And you want these verminous companies doing their business on your doorstep? Keep believing the lies.
Don't agree with what I say? The Gazette IS fulfilling it's role in keeping the readership in the dark about the dangers of nuclear and I can prove it - just type "Hinkley" into the search bar at the top of the page and you will see all the articles the Gazette has historically produced concerning Hinkley. Every article that comes up is positive or throws positive spin onto negative stories and this is not an accident. This paper, like just about every other paper in the land, is used as a tool to control the public mind and perceptions......tha t is its role. Judging by the feedback left on here about Hinkley, they're doing a very good job. In the wake of Fukushima which is still polluting the world to this day, people should be outraged at the prospect of more nuclear in this country and in this area, but they're not. Especially when there is a possible history of tsunami occurrence in the Severn - not confirmed but likely and definitely possible. We should not blindly welcome Hinkley C and we should not allow our minds to be tricked by the prospect of more jobs and money. We should be seeking to join arms with forward thinking nations like Germany in becoming nuclear free in the not too distant future. The nuclear industry IS very ugly too. Are you aware that thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste lies in steel barrels corroding on the seabed all around the UK coastline, including the Channel, because for decades that is how they got rid of it.....just chucking it into the sea because it was too expensive to do anything else (it's all about the money, remember)? Thought not. But that's OK they don't do that anymore......instead they just pump it into the sea directly via pipelines! And you want these verminous companies doing their business on your doorstep? Keep believing the lies. TauntonSucks
  • Score: 1

2:33pm Fri 30 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Great post and good to hear some anger rather than apathy. Nuclear is a nasty nasty business.
Great post and good to hear some anger rather than apathy. Nuclear is a nasty nasty business. GoingGreen
  • Score: 1

9:13pm Fri 30 May 14

saintstreaky says...

GoingGreen wrote:
Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one.
Would you like to suggest an alternative?
[quote][p][bold]GoingGreen[/bold] wrote: Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one.[/p][/quote]Would you like to suggest an alternative? saintstreaky
  • Score: 0

7:39am Sat 31 May 14

GoingGreen says...

saintstreaky wrote:
GoingGreen wrote:
Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one.
Would you like to suggest an alternative?
Would love to, but energy companies and government are too short sighted to investigate properly. Sad really.
[quote][p][bold]saintstreaky[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GoingGreen[/bold] wrote: Nuclear waste the complete green solution? Good one.[/p][/quote]Would you like to suggest an alternative?[/p][/quote]Would love to, but energy companies and government are too short sighted to investigate properly. Sad really. GoingGreen
  • Score: 0

11:09am Sat 31 May 14

Monument says...

There we have the green argument - we don't want nuclear but we have no idea of viable an alternative that will maintain our power supplies.

Wind and solar simply cannot supply sufficient power and are turning our beautiful countrysides into shiny, noisy eyesores.
There we have the green argument - we don't want nuclear but we have no idea of viable an alternative that will maintain our power supplies. Wind and solar simply cannot supply sufficient power and are turning our beautiful countrysides into shiny, noisy eyesores. Monument
  • Score: 3

11:52am Sat 31 May 14

TauntonSucks says...

Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid."

Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start.
Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid." Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start. TauntonSucks
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Sat 31 May 14

r000006 says...

TauntonSucks wrote:
Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid."

Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start.
We import over 60% of our 'energy' from overseas (15% from russia) etc etc etc.

Surely better that we produce more of 'our own' without having to rely on volatile countries, regimes and their pricing.

I'm sure we could shutdown all our own energy plants tomorrow. If you don't mind paying 10x the price otherwise shut your mouth and GTFO.
[quote][p][bold]TauntonSucks[/bold] wrote: Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid." Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start.[/p][/quote]We import over 60% of our 'energy' from overseas (15% from russia) etc etc etc. Surely better that we produce more of 'our own' without having to rely on volatile countries, regimes and their pricing. I'm sure we could shutdown all our own energy plants tomorrow. If you don't mind paying 10x the price otherwise shut your mouth and GTFO. r000006
  • Score: 1

12:25pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

GoingGreen wrote:
Well said TauntonSucks.
Well said GoingGreen and TauntSucks...

www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
[quote][p][bold]GoingGreen[/bold] wrote: Well said TauntonSucks.[/p][/quote]Well said GoingGreen and TauntSucks... www.socialistparty.o rg.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: -4

12:38pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

Energy for the millions ...not the millionaires!

Last November, fuel prices are rose steeply, and not for the first time. Days after one power conglomerate Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) put its prices up by 8.2% on average, British Gas (BG), the biggest of them all, increased its electricity charges by 10.4% and gas charges by 8.4%.

People ask what on earth is going on in the energy industry? This Socialist Party post investigates the issues.

One in four households regularly has to choose between heating their homes and eating. Confronted with anger at rapidly rising energy prices Prime Minister Cameron merely advised us to switch suppliers. But all members of the Big Six energy cartel are putting up prices!

A British Gas spokesperson suggested customers could get round the increase by consuming less power, though their adverts were still telling us exactly the opposite. Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey advised us to wear a jumper.

He echoed the 2008 comments of Centrica's then managing director Jake Ulrich. When announcing huge rises then, he suggested his customers should wear two sweaters rather than one to reduce their bills! In fact, many people do wear several sweaters and many old people already spend much of the coldest months in bed to try to save money.

At September's Labour Party conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband announced that he would freeze energy prices for 20 months and introduce a new system of energy industry regulation.

Miliband pulled this policy like a rabbit out of a hat with no details of how it would be implemented. But what would stop companies simply ratcheting up prices before the election, or what kind of regulatory system would replace Ofgem?

The main problem is who controls the energy industry. The privatised companies' main goal is to get as big a profit as possible.

The 'Big Six' duplicate each other. They don't have separate electricity or gas supplies, they don't have separate electric cables or gas pipes, their main function is to send out massive bills.

The Big Six energy companies protest against the very idea of a price freeze, but they still make inflation-busting price increases.

Before the latest round, one company (E.ON) announced it will scrap its 'Stay-Warm' tariff for older people, meaning higher bills for tens of thousands of pensioners.

Fastest price rises

The Big Six supply gas and electricity to over 50 million homes and businesses, with over 95% of domestic customers.

They emerged from the energy sector's privatisation in 1990 and are now largely owned by European multinationals.

French and Spanish-owned companies are free to hammer customers with big price rises in the unregulated UK market, but in France and Spain prices, though high, are tied to inflation.

UK electricity and gas prices are rising faster than anywhere else in the EU, doubling in just seven years.

In addition to the Six, National Grid Plc operates the transmission of electricity throughout the UK, making £2.3 billion profit last year.

Big Six profits rose from £2.15 billion to £3.7 billion in the last three years, with around 60% of profits going straight to shareholders, rather than into new capacity or keeping prices low.

Before the latest price rises, the typical domestic dual fuel bill stood at £1,420 a year, up from £1,100 in May 2010, an increase of nearly a third, while most workers' wages are flat-lining or being cut. British Gas made a post-tax profit of over £1 billion last year.

As well as extortionate profits from our bills, these companies benefit from massive tax-breaks and subsidies, which keep the UK hooked on fossil fuels.

The Con-Dems ramped up tax breaks for fossil fuels and now for shale gas ('fracking'). So, while the industry moans about high taxes, some enjoy multi-million pound tax breaks, and escape the real costs of economic and environmental damage caused by pollution, waste and climate warming.

The Big Six bleat that freezing energy bills will mean less investment in renewables. But they hardly invest in renewables already - over half the £13 billion invested in new electricity generation since 2006 was in new gas plants.

The UK currently ranks 25th out of 27 EU member countries in the renewables league table. Ironically, four of the Big Six are owned by European companies from countries higher up the league table than Britain!

In 2012, small solar panel systems owners contributed a 14% share of renewable energy generation, bigger than any one of the Big Six.

Small local projects' success shows that people are prepared to move to green power, jumping through planning, legal and regulatory hoops to do so, with local cooperative wind, solar and hydro schemes generating power - and income - for communities.

Future renationalisation of the power industry need not cut across such schemes - indeed by providing a proper system of tariffs, and grant assistance, democratically determined - public ownership could help boost local projects.

However, by themselves, they cannot offer a solution to the British economy's energy needs.

Private profit or public good

In a capitalist 'free market', companies such as the Big Six will only invest where it brings them profit.

Electricity and gas were first nationalised by the 1945 Labour government, who saw central, long-term planning as vital.

Their manifesto stated: "Public ownership of gas and electricity will lower charges, prevent competitive waste, open the way for coordinated research and development."

But since privatisation, there has been no planning or coordination to keep prices low or convert effectively to low carbon energy.

Even the proposed carbon-capture to allow a 'cleaner' form of electricity from coal and gas was quietly abandoned.

Meanwhile highly polluting coal power stations are having their lives extended, thanks to the Con-Dems throwing the Big Six yet more subsidies.

Miliband's price-freeze is a popular move. Four out of five people agree that the Big Six maximise their profits at consumers' expense.

However, it is just tinkering with the problem. If it were possible to effectively regulate the energy market then wouldn't the last Labour government's energy secretary have done so - his name was Ed Miliband!

Even a threat of minor tinkering with their profits prompted the Big Six to threaten to turn the lights out - effectively a capitalist strike against British society.

If Miliband is serious about tackling energy prices he would renationalise the energy industry - but New Labour is ideologically committed to defending capitalism and supporting big business, whatever its conference rhetoric.

If these capitalist firms claim that the money is not there or refuse to cooperate, the unions should build on their own members' anger and that of the wider public to create a mass campaign for the renationalisation of this industry. It should never have been sold off into private hands in the first place.

They should take up the call: "Open the books!" This means we need to look at the accounts of the energy giants.

Where have all the profits gone? At the top, money vanishes into massive salaries and bonuses for top employees and huge dividends for shareholders. The cash is there to prevent this double-figure inflation in price hikes.

Nationalise

Let elected workers' representatives run the nationalised energy industry under democratic control. The only way to get cheap, sustainable energy is to return the industry to public ownership with immediate nationalisation of the 'Big Six'.

A Mirror online poll found 94% would like to see energy returned to public ownership. There is no need to compensate the fat cat owners, although small shareholders would be compensated in cases of need.

Across the country trade unions and protest groups are organising to oppose fracking and environmental destruction.

Linking up with all who demand nationalisation will be key. We should also fight for a socialist society in the interests of consumers and workers rather than capitalists' profits.

We could aim for a properly planned, carbon-free energy system, not run bureaucratically as it was in the past, but managed democratically, centred on committees of elected representatives of energy workers and the wider community.

Decisions on major projects, like the proposed Severn Barrage, would be made democratically.

A publicly owned Green Energy company would construct solar panels and wind turbines and research new forms of renewable energy.

A nationwide programme to ensure every home is properly insulated and fitted with energy-efficient appliances could reduce domestic energy demand by 40%.

Similar measures in shops, offices and factories could save even more. This would also create thousands of much-needed jobs.

The government's aggressively free market attitude towards energy is summed up well in their deal with EDF and Chinese investors for Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.

This protects shareholders' profits while boosting unsafe nuclear power and risking sky-high electricity prices for decades (see link below).

In rural areas, where mains gas is unavailable, many currently depend on oil for heating, at the mercy of an unregulated market and causing high rates of fuel poverty.

A nationally controlled and owned oil supply system would address this, until green alternatives can be implemented.

These measures would create thousands of skilled jobs in construction, power generation and distribution and in making equipment.

Local community schemes could become part of a national plan with guaranteed tariffs to sell electricity to the grid, money to use for the benefit of their communities.

New homes and businesses would be built with much improved energy efficiency as well as being fitted with solar and other energy-generating technology, while older buildings would be retrofitted to similar levels.

Bills would be kept affordable, no one would be 'cut off' as a result of poverty. Energy could be planned for the benefit of us all, not for the profits of a few.

A socialist programme includes:

*Freeze fuel prices now but don't stop there! We call for the immediate nationalisation of the energy industry with compensation only paid to shareholders on the basis of proven need.

*A democratically controlled, publicly owned, energy industry should put lower prices and protection of the environment first, not the vast profits, dividends and pay-outs to rich bosses and shareholders.

*A democratic socialist plan for energy should be worked out internationally involving workers in the energy sector, scientists, community and environmental organisations and the wider working class.

*This plan should aim to replace fossil fuels with massive investment into renewable energy - such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal energy sources. No to nuclear power.

*For a democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, implemented in a way that safeguards the environment.

For more information or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk

www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
Energy for the millions ...not the millionaires! Last November, fuel prices are rose steeply, and not for the first time. Days after one power conglomerate Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) put its prices up by 8.2% on average, British Gas (BG), the biggest of them all, increased its electricity charges by 10.4% and gas charges by 8.4%. People ask what on earth is going on in the energy industry? This Socialist Party post investigates the issues. One in four households regularly has to choose between heating their homes and eating. Confronted with anger at rapidly rising energy prices Prime Minister Cameron merely advised us to switch suppliers. But all members of the Big Six energy cartel are putting up prices! A British Gas spokesperson suggested customers could get round the increase by consuming less power, though their adverts were still telling us exactly the opposite. Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey advised us to wear a jumper. He echoed the 2008 comments of Centrica's then managing director Jake Ulrich. When announcing huge rises then, he suggested his customers should wear two sweaters rather than one to reduce their bills! In fact, many people do wear several sweaters and many old people already spend much of the coldest months in bed to try to save money. At September's Labour Party conference, Labour leader Ed Miliband announced that he would freeze energy prices for 20 months and introduce a new system of energy industry regulation. Miliband pulled this policy like a rabbit out of a hat with no details of how it would be implemented. But what would stop companies simply ratcheting up prices before the election, or what kind of regulatory system would replace Ofgem? The main problem is who controls the energy industry. The privatised companies' main goal is to get as big a profit as possible. The 'Big Six' duplicate each other. They don't have separate electricity or gas supplies, they don't have separate electric cables or gas pipes, their main function is to send out massive bills. The Big Six energy companies protest against the very idea of a price freeze, but they still make inflation-busting price increases. Before the latest round, one company (E.ON) announced it will scrap its 'Stay-Warm' tariff for older people, meaning higher bills for tens of thousands of pensioners. Fastest price rises The Big Six supply gas and electricity to over 50 million homes and businesses, with over 95% of domestic customers. They emerged from the energy sector's privatisation in 1990 and are now largely owned by European multinationals. French and Spanish-owned companies are free to hammer customers with big price rises in the unregulated UK market, but in France and Spain prices, though high, are tied to inflation. UK electricity and gas prices are rising faster than anywhere else in the EU, doubling in just seven years. In addition to the Six, National Grid Plc operates the transmission of electricity throughout the UK, making £2.3 billion profit last year. Big Six profits rose from £2.15 billion to £3.7 billion in the last three years, with around 60% of profits going straight to shareholders, rather than into new capacity or keeping prices low. Before the latest price rises, the typical domestic dual fuel bill stood at £1,420 a year, up from £1,100 in May 2010, an increase of nearly a third, while most workers' wages are flat-lining or being cut. British Gas made a post-tax profit of over £1 billion last year. As well as extortionate profits from our bills, these companies benefit from massive tax-breaks and subsidies, which keep the UK hooked on fossil fuels. The Con-Dems ramped up tax breaks for fossil fuels and now for shale gas ('fracking'). So, while the industry moans about high taxes, some enjoy multi-million pound tax breaks, and escape the real costs of economic and environmental damage caused by pollution, waste and climate warming. The Big Six bleat that freezing energy bills will mean less investment in renewables. But they hardly invest in renewables already - over half the £13 billion invested in new electricity generation since 2006 was in new gas plants. The UK currently ranks 25th out of 27 EU member countries in the renewables league table. Ironically, four of the Big Six are owned by European companies from countries higher up the league table than Britain! In 2012, small solar panel systems owners contributed a 14% share of renewable energy generation, bigger than any one of the Big Six. Small local projects' success shows that people are prepared to move to green power, jumping through planning, legal and regulatory hoops to do so, with local cooperative wind, solar and hydro schemes generating power - and income - for communities. Future renationalisation of the power industry need not cut across such schemes - indeed by providing a proper system of tariffs, and grant assistance, democratically determined - public ownership could help boost local projects. However, by themselves, they cannot offer a solution to the British economy's energy needs. Private profit or public good In a capitalist 'free market', companies such as the Big Six will only invest where it brings them profit. Electricity and gas were first nationalised by the 1945 Labour government, who saw central, long-term planning as vital. Their manifesto stated: "Public ownership of gas and electricity will lower charges, prevent competitive waste, open the way for coordinated research and development." But since privatisation, there has been no planning or coordination to keep prices low or convert effectively to low carbon energy. Even the proposed carbon-capture to allow a 'cleaner' form of electricity from coal and gas was quietly abandoned. Meanwhile highly polluting coal power stations are having their lives extended, thanks to the Con-Dems throwing the Big Six yet more subsidies. Miliband's price-freeze is a popular move. Four out of five people agree that the Big Six maximise their profits at consumers' expense. However, it is just tinkering with the problem. If it were possible to effectively regulate the energy market then wouldn't the last Labour government's energy secretary have done so - his name was Ed Miliband! Even a threat of minor tinkering with their profits prompted the Big Six to threaten to turn the lights out - effectively a capitalist strike against British society. If Miliband is serious about tackling energy prices he would renationalise the energy industry - but New Labour is ideologically committed to defending capitalism and supporting big business, whatever its conference rhetoric. If these capitalist firms claim that the money is not there or refuse to cooperate, the unions should build on their own members' anger and that of the wider public to create a mass campaign for the renationalisation of this industry. It should never have been sold off into private hands in the first place. They should take up the call: "Open the books!" This means we need to look at the accounts of the energy giants. Where have all the profits gone? At the top, money vanishes into massive salaries and bonuses for top employees and huge dividends for shareholders. The cash is there to prevent this double-figure inflation in price hikes. Nationalise Let elected workers' representatives run the nationalised energy industry under democratic control. The only way to get cheap, sustainable energy is to return the industry to public ownership with immediate nationalisation of the 'Big Six'. A Mirror online poll found 94% would like to see energy returned to public ownership. There is no need to compensate the fat cat owners, although small shareholders would be compensated in cases of need. Across the country trade unions and protest groups are organising to oppose fracking and environmental destruction. Linking up with all who demand nationalisation will be key. We should also fight for a socialist society in the interests of consumers and workers rather than capitalists' profits. We could aim for a properly planned, carbon-free energy system, not run bureaucratically as it was in the past, but managed democratically, centred on committees of elected representatives of energy workers and the wider community. Decisions on major projects, like the proposed Severn Barrage, would be made democratically. A publicly owned Green Energy company would construct solar panels and wind turbines and research new forms of renewable energy. A nationwide programme to ensure every home is properly insulated and fitted with energy-efficient appliances could reduce domestic energy demand by 40%. Similar measures in shops, offices and factories could save even more. This would also create thousands of much-needed jobs. The government's aggressively free market attitude towards energy is summed up well in their deal with EDF and Chinese investors for Hinkley Point nuclear power plant. This protects shareholders' profits while boosting unsafe nuclear power and risking sky-high electricity prices for decades (see link below). In rural areas, where mains gas is unavailable, many currently depend on oil for heating, at the mercy of an unregulated market and causing high rates of fuel poverty. A nationally controlled and owned oil supply system would address this, until green alternatives can be implemented. These measures would create thousands of skilled jobs in construction, power generation and distribution and in making equipment. Local community schemes could become part of a national plan with guaranteed tariffs to sell electricity to the grid, money to use for the benefit of their communities. New homes and businesses would be built with much improved energy efficiency as well as being fitted with solar and other energy-generating technology, while older buildings would be retrofitted to similar levels. Bills would be kept affordable, no one would be 'cut off' as a result of poverty. Energy could be planned for the benefit of us all, not for the profits of a few. A socialist programme includes: *Freeze fuel prices now but don't stop there! We call for the immediate nationalisation of the energy industry with compensation only paid to shareholders on the basis of proven need. *A democratically controlled, publicly owned, energy industry should put lower prices and protection of the environment first, not the vast profits, dividends and pay-outs to rich bosses and shareholders. *A democratic socialist plan for energy should be worked out internationally involving workers in the energy sector, scientists, community and environmental organisations and the wider working class. *This plan should aim to replace fossil fuels with massive investment into renewable energy - such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal energy sources. No to nuclear power. *For a democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, implemented in a way that safeguards the environment. For more information or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o rg.uk www.socialistparty.o rg.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: -4

12:40pm Sat 31 May 14

TauntonSucks says...

r000006 wrote:
TauntonSucks wrote:
Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid."

Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start.
We import over 60% of our 'energy' from overseas (15% from russia) etc etc etc.

Surely better that we produce more of 'our own' without having to rely on volatile countries, regimes and their pricing.

I'm sure we could shutdown all our own energy plants tomorrow. If you don't mind paying 10x the price otherwise shut your mouth and GTFO.
First of all thank you for helping me to make my point about the establishment. Secondly, nice to see we agree about generating our own energy.
[quote][p][bold]r000006[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TauntonSucks[/bold] wrote: Only 18% of all UK energy comes from nuclear, so this argument that without it we are all going to be without power is nothing but fearmongering. It's very important to remember the British establishment's motto regarding its own citizens is "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em stupid." Despite what you have been led to believe, we are intelligent enough to overcome this problem. As GoingGreen has alluded to, unfortunately the will to change is not there. One problem is that the big energy companies have been given the role of promoting energy efficiency. This means they are supposed to do everything they can to help the nation to reduce their energy consumption. The problem here is that the energy companies care only about profits and shareholders. This being the case, there is a conflict of interest. On one hand, they are supposed to be helping us to reduce energy consumption, on the other hand they want their customers to use as much energy as possible to maximise profits. The answer here is to re-nationalise the energy industry, as is the Green Party's policy. Once this has happened, there would be a great focus on energy efficiency, small scale local generation and education. By education, I mean that we would take our greatest scientific minds and focus their attention on progressing with the world's energy requirements. That would be a good start.[/p][/quote]We import over 60% of our 'energy' from overseas (15% from russia) etc etc etc. Surely better that we produce more of 'our own' without having to rely on volatile countries, regimes and their pricing. I'm sure we could shutdown all our own energy plants tomorrow. If you don't mind paying 10x the price otherwise shut your mouth and GTFO.[/p][/quote]First of all thank you for helping me to make my point about the establishment. Secondly, nice to see we agree about generating our own energy. TauntonSucks
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

A Socialist programme to solve the energy crisis

Pete Dickenson, author of Planning for the Planet, wrote in the Socialist that "the wider adoption and further development of existing technology, such as wind, wave and solar power" can only be realised "by eliminating the power of the big corporations.

"This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy. This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe.

"Two related factors underlie nearly all environmental threats - the quest for profit by big corporations and the inevitable tendency of competitive markets to degrade the environment.

"The task is urgent. It must involve the political rearmament of the workers' movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme.

"As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers' parties to replace the discredited former workers' organisations.

"These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet...

"To avoid the worst effects of climate change, decisive action needs to be taken now, but there is no sign of this happening due to the rivalries between the main industrial powers.

"It falls on the shoulders of the international workers' movement to implement a programme to tackle climate change - replacing capitalism with a democratic socialist system."

Planning for the Planet: How socialism could save the environment, by Pete Dickenson available from www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk or wwwleftbooks.co.uk
A Socialist programme to solve the energy crisis Pete Dickenson, author of Planning for the Planet, wrote in the Socialist that "the wider adoption and further development of existing technology, such as wind, wave and solar power" can only be realised "by eliminating the power of the big corporations. "This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy. This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe. "Two related factors underlie nearly all environmental threats - the quest for profit by big corporations and the inevitable tendency of competitive markets to degrade the environment. "The task is urgent. It must involve the political rearmament of the workers' movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme. "As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers' parties to replace the discredited former workers' organisations. "These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet... "To avoid the worst effects of climate change, decisive action needs to be taken now, but there is no sign of this happening due to the rivalries between the main industrial powers. "It falls on the shoulders of the international workers' movement to implement a programme to tackle climate change [and the energy crisis] - replacing capitalism with a democratic socialist system." Planning for the Planet: How socialism could save the environment, by Pete Dickenson available from www.socialistparty.o rg.uk or wwwleftbooks.co.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: -3

12:46pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

Big profits, low investment

The 'Big Six' are:

*Centrica/British Gas - one of Thatcher's flagship privatisations. Centrica CEO Sam Laidlaw pockets a whopping £36,000 a week (and is fighting to retain his £2 million bonus) while the outgoing British Gas boss is walking away with over £13 million in pay shares and pension.

*EDF Energy - French-owned, with coal and gas-fired facilities, and eight nuclear power stations.

* E.ON Energy - German-owned. Although claiming to be 'one of the world's leading renewables companies', it invested just £2 billion in UK capacity since 2006, two thirds in renewables.

*npower - also German, owns and operates nine power stations, the biggest investor - including renewables - in the UK over the last several years.

*Scottish Power - owned by Spanish multinational Iberdrola, which claims to be global leader in wind energy. Iberdrola is currently trying to shed its 50% stake in the UK nuclear consortium NuGen, which owns Sellafield. Must have seen which way the wind is blowing!

*SSE - formed from the old Scottish Hydro-Electric, Southern Electric, and SWALEC. The second largest supplier of electricity and natural gas in the UK. Britain's largest generator of renewable energy, but this is mainly Scottish hydro-power, constructed in the 1950s, under public ownership!

www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
Big profits, low investment The 'Big Six' are: *Centrica/British Gas - one of Thatcher's flagship privatisations. Centrica CEO Sam Laidlaw pockets a whopping £36,000 a week (and is fighting to retain his £2 million bonus) while the outgoing British Gas boss is walking away with over £13 million in pay shares and pension. *EDF Energy - French-owned, with coal and gas-fired facilities, and eight nuclear power stations. * E.ON Energy - German-owned. Although claiming to be 'one of the world's leading renewables companies', it invested just £2 billion in UK capacity since 2006, two thirds in renewables. *npower - also German, owns and operates nine power stations, the biggest investor - including renewables - in the UK over the last several years. *Scottish Power - owned by Spanish multinational Iberdrola, which claims to be global leader in wind energy. Iberdrola is currently trying to shed its 50% stake in the UK nuclear consortium NuGen, which owns Sellafield. Must have seen which way the wind is blowing! *SSE - formed from the old Scottish Hydro-Electric, Southern Electric, and SWALEC. The second largest supplier of electricity and natural gas in the UK. Britain's largest generator of renewable energy, but this is mainly Scottish hydro-power, constructed in the 1950s, under public ownership! www.socialistparty.o rg.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: -4

12:49pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

2007-2011 Dividend payout rate

*Centrica/British Gas 74%

*EDF 58%

*E.ON 56%

*npower 57%

*Iberdrola/Scottish Power 24%

*SSE 63%

Source: Bloomberg report for Greenpeace

www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
2007-2011 Dividend payout rate *Centrica/British Gas 74% *EDF 58% *E.ON 56% *npower 57% *Iberdrola/Scottish Power 24% *SSE 63% Source: Bloomberg report for Greenpeace www.socialistparty.o rg.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Sat 31 May 14

SocialistParty*SomersetBranch says...

Big business lines its pockets from nuclear power bonanza...



You want generous, guaranteed energy prices, fixed for 35 years? No problem if you own a French or Chinese multinational company. Bad luck if you're an ordinary consumer.

Prime Minister David Cameron has 'kick-started' the nuclear industry with a big boost for the profits of French company EDF and two Chinese corporations who will build a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Meanwhile the situation in Fukushima, where Japanese nuclear power stations were destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami over two years ago, seems to worsen.

Guaranteed profits

This government condemned Labour leader Ed Miliband for threatening to freeze consumers' sky-high energy prices for just 20 months. The energy companies reacted by holding the country to ransom, threatening blackouts and the loss of thousands of jobs in the energy industry, and then announced price rises of around 10% just weeks later.

Yet the government has negotiated 35 years of guaranteed profits to big business, promising the energy companies they can sell the electricity they produce at Hinkley at double the current wholesale market rate - the rate at which power generators sell their power to the energy suppliers.

This huge subsidy will come out of our pockets through higher energy bills once the plant is running.

Massive subsidies have always been handed to the nuclear industry to cover the exorbitant costs of nuclear power, the extreme danger posed by nuclear reactors, and the unsolved problem of decommissioning nuclear waste - successive government's covert goal was always to facilitate nuclear weapons production.

Nuclear energy is promoted as a low carbon alternative yet the dangers of Fukushima and nuclear waste show this is no alternative.

After the opulent profits and rich dividends have been extracted by owners and 'investors' all along the production chain, the fat-cat energy suppliers retail the electricity to us, the consumer, and we pick up the final bill.

Centrica, the corporate name of the former British Gas Corporation privatised by Margaret Thatcher in 1986, greedily demanded a higher subsidy than the Chinese and French corporations, so they lost out.

The Hinkley Point winners EDF and the Chinese corporations are state owned. All are run like voracious capitalist companies, but state-subsidised in order to grab a bigger slice of the world market.

If the last Labour government under the then energy minister Ed Miliband had renationalised the energy industry, the government would have had complete control over the situation from the start. But the Labour leadership rejects re-nationalisation.

National plan

A state-owned energy industry could immediately plan to convert the country to solar, wind and tidal power supplies.

A national plan could be drawn up, a scaled-up version of the ten-year plan implemented by the then nationalised British Gas in 1967-77, when a huge army of engineers efficiently converted 40 million appliances and 13 million gas customers from dirty coal gas to North Sea gas.

Energy minister Ed Davey warns that gas prices can only go up, so we'd better be glad we're paying extra for nuclear, or else 'we'll all be in trouble'. This contradicts all the recent government lies about fracking bringing endless cheap energy, lies which were also followed by generous tax subsidies offered to fracking companies!

The cost of energy from coal, oil, gas and nuclear is not only to be calculated in the inflated subsidies and the huge bills we receive, but in the incalculable cost to the environment in which we live and suffer the consequences.

By any long-term measure, carbon-free green energy is far cheaper. It is short-term profit and insatiable competition between capitalist nations which prevents the harvesting of the free resources of the sun, wind and tides and instead chains us to escalating energy bills, soot, smoke and the ever-present danger of nuclear radiation.



To find out more, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o
rg.uk
Big business lines its pockets from nuclear power bonanza... You want generous, guaranteed energy prices, fixed for 35 years? No problem if you own a French or Chinese multinational company. Bad luck if you're an ordinary consumer. Prime Minister David Cameron has 'kick-started' the nuclear industry with a big boost for the profits of French company EDF and two Chinese corporations who will build a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Meanwhile the situation in Fukushima, where Japanese nuclear power stations were destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami over two years ago, seems to worsen. Guaranteed profits This government condemned Labour leader Ed Miliband for threatening to freeze consumers' sky-high energy prices for just 20 months. The energy companies reacted by holding the country to ransom, threatening blackouts and the loss of thousands of jobs in the energy industry, and then announced price rises of around 10% just weeks later. Yet the government has negotiated 35 years of guaranteed profits to big business, promising the energy companies they can sell the electricity they produce at Hinkley at double the current wholesale market rate - the rate at which power generators sell their power to the energy suppliers. This huge subsidy will come out of our pockets through higher energy bills once the plant is running. Massive subsidies have always been handed to the nuclear industry to cover the exorbitant costs of nuclear power, the extreme danger posed by nuclear reactors, and the unsolved problem of decommissioning nuclear waste - successive government's covert goal was always to facilitate nuclear weapons production. Nuclear energy is promoted as a low carbon alternative yet the dangers of Fukushima and nuclear waste show this is no alternative. After the opulent profits and rich dividends have been extracted by owners and 'investors' all along the production chain, the fat-cat energy suppliers retail the electricity to us, the consumer, and we pick up the final bill. Centrica, the corporate name of the former British Gas Corporation privatised by Margaret Thatcher in 1986, greedily demanded a higher subsidy than the Chinese and French corporations, so they lost out. The Hinkley Point winners EDF and the Chinese corporations are state owned. All are run like voracious capitalist companies, but state-subsidised in order to grab a bigger slice of the world market. If the last Labour government under the then energy minister Ed Miliband had renationalised the energy industry, the government would have had complete control over the situation from the start. But the Labour leadership rejects re-nationalisation. National plan A state-owned energy industry could immediately plan to convert the country to solar, wind and tidal power supplies. A national plan could be drawn up, a scaled-up version of the ten-year plan implemented by the then nationalised British Gas in 1967-77, when a huge army of engineers efficiently converted 40 million appliances and 13 million gas customers from dirty coal gas to North Sea gas. Energy minister Ed Davey warns that gas prices can only go up, so we'd better be glad we're paying extra for nuclear, or else 'we'll all be in trouble'. This contradicts all the recent government lies about fracking bringing endless cheap energy, lies which were also followed by generous tax subsidies offered to fracking companies! The cost of energy from coal, oil, gas and nuclear is not only to be calculated in the inflated subsidies and the huge bills we receive, but in the incalculable cost to the environment in which we live and suffer the consequences. By any long-term measure, carbon-free green energy is far cheaper. It is short-term profit and insatiable competition between capitalist nations which prevents the harvesting of the free resources of the sun, wind and tides and instead chains us to escalating energy bills, soot, smoke and the ever-present danger of nuclear radiation. To find out more, or to join the Socialist Party, visit: www.socialistparty.o rg.uk SocialistParty*SomersetBranch
  • Score: -2

3:20pm Sat 31 May 14

GoingGreen says...

Monument wrote:
There we have the green argument - we don't want nuclear but we have no idea of viable an alternative that will maintain our power supplies.

Wind and solar simply cannot supply sufficient power and are turning our beautiful countrysides into shiny, noisy eyesores.
The green argument is not to accept short term solution for the benefit of govt and energy companies at the expense of long term environmental health. This generation is largely ignorant of the impact of pollution and climate change, or happy to brush it under the carpet (or in the case of the alps, brush it under the huge tarpaulins being used to slow accelerating glacier melt rates).
[quote][p][bold]Monument[/bold] wrote: There we have the green argument - we don't want nuclear but we have no idea of viable an alternative that will maintain our power supplies. Wind and solar simply cannot supply sufficient power and are turning our beautiful countrysides into shiny, noisy eyesores.[/p][/quote]The green argument is not to accept short term solution for the benefit of govt and energy companies at the expense of long term environmental health. This generation is largely ignorant of the impact of pollution and climate change, or happy to brush it under the carpet (or in the case of the alps, brush it under the huge tarpaulins being used to slow accelerating glacier melt rates). GoingGreen
  • Score: -1

4:48pm Sat 31 May 14

duckface08 says...

I accept that some people are against nuclear power but these same people say nothing about the enormous import of French generated nuclear power supplied by the SIX reactors at Graveline ( just outside Dunkirk ) and arriving via the undersea cable. If we are going to use nuclear power then make sure its our own.
I accept that some people are against nuclear power but these same people say nothing about the enormous import of French generated nuclear power supplied by the SIX reactors at Graveline ( just outside Dunkirk ) and arriving via the undersea cable. If we are going to use nuclear power then make sure its our own. duckface08
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree