Saturday, June 03, 2006
HERALD LETTER ON THE GREEN'S & SLD'S NUCLEAR LUNACY
In Friday's Herald (I haven't linked it because the Herald is subscrption after the first day):
John Stewart argues that the approaching blackouts due to lack of electricity-generating capacity can be postponed by a 10-year extension of the life of Hunterston (Letters, May 30). Robin Harper, Green MSP, in reply (June 1) says that because we use power in other forms (cars, aircraft, etc) we will not notice when what he acknowledges as "only" one-third of our electricity is cut off.
I believe that a new reactor would be cheaper in anything but the short term and safer and would certainly produce less reactor waste than running the current one so far beyond its design life. Whatever the technical case for such an extension, your readers should be informed that at their recent conference the LibDems not only opposed new generators but specifically rejected an amendment which would have allowed such an extension for Hunterston. In which case Hunterston will close in 2011 and blackouts can be expected shortly thereafter.
This is in accord with the policy of Nicol Stephen who declared, during a recent BBC debate, that "nuclear is the easy answer" and went on to explain that it must thus be avoided at all costs since if it were allowed to work the electorate would never accept all the massive subsidies for wind, etc. Personally, I do not consider that position can reasonably be called "liberal".
Perhaps Scotland deserves some political leaders who do not believe that uncomfortable facts will go away if they bury their heads in the sand.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Perhaps Mr Stephen will write to clarify his remarks & explain exactly where the electricity to replace Hunterston in 2011 is to come from. Since he has not exactly been highly visible I suspect not.
(no response today - I will add here if they feel able to respond)
John Stewart argues that the approaching blackouts due to lack of electricity-generating capacity can be postponed by a 10-year extension of the life of Hunterston (Letters, May 30). Robin Harper, Green MSP, in reply (June 1) says that because we use power in other forms (cars, aircraft, etc) we will not notice when what he acknowledges as "only" one-third of our electricity is cut off.
I believe that a new reactor would be cheaper in anything but the short term and safer and would certainly produce less reactor waste than running the current one so far beyond its design life. Whatever the technical case for such an extension, your readers should be informed that at their recent conference the LibDems not only opposed new generators but specifically rejected an amendment which would have allowed such an extension for Hunterston. In which case Hunterston will close in 2011 and blackouts can be expected shortly thereafter.
This is in accord with the policy of Nicol Stephen who declared, during a recent BBC debate, that "nuclear is the easy answer" and went on to explain that it must thus be avoided at all costs since if it were allowed to work the electorate would never accept all the massive subsidies for wind, etc. Personally, I do not consider that position can reasonably be called "liberal".
Perhaps Scotland deserves some political leaders who do not believe that uncomfortable facts will go away if they bury their heads in the sand.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
Perhaps Mr Stephen will write to clarify his remarks & explain exactly where the electricity to replace Hunterston in 2011 is to come from. Since he has not exactly been highly visible I suspect not.
(no response today - I will add here if they feel able to respond)
