I do not agree with Alan Whitehead. I think he's just trying to retain his existing voters and win some new ones. The real myth is that we will ever be able to manage without Nuclear Power.

Nuclear Power is controversial, for good reason. It is potentially very dangerous and there all sorts of side issues. I don't dispute that.

But I'm afraid there's going to be a whacking great hole in our energy supply in the not too distant future, when the existing Nuclear plants reach the end of the life and are decommisioned.

Furthermore, our over-reliance on gas-fired Power Stations currently leaves us seriously exposed to East-West International politics and an increasing UK population only serves to compound the problem by increasing the demand for energy.

Oil is becoming scarcer. Our Coal industry has been wrecked. Even if we could use those fuels more, they too are "politically incorrect" because their combustion releases greenhouse gasses and sulphorous emissions which are alleged to contribute to global warming and acid rain.

Clean energy from renewable sources is the Holy Grail that everybody would ideally like to see (me included), but the technologies do not seem able to generate power on the same sort of scale as a traditional power station (Nuclear, Gas, Coal or Oil).

There would be an even greater outcry if we had to cover the whole of the South Downs with wind turbines.

So pending somebody finally cracking the problem of cold-fusion, a new generation of Nuclear Power Stations is the only practical answer at the moment.

Yes, they'll be politically unpopular with some sections of the population, but the consequences of not building them are so great that we've no longer got the luxury of being able to choose whether we build them or not.

Its time to accept that we're faced with "Hobsons Choice" and we must crack on with the job of designing and building this new generation of Nuclear Power Station.

so when the lights do go out,then what will he suggest.MPs always attack others ideas but never ever come up with a solution

TGR - your opening statement about an MP trying to retain voters and attract more is not really unsurprising, is it? His opinion is agreed with by many and as more information gets presented by the various channels such as the media and the government, many more may find they agree also. I have no problem with the debate - thats the democracy we live in. The consequences of Nuclear and non-Nuclear energy policies are both positive and negative. I need to have more details before i can really forge an opinion. If there were no people prepared to stand up and voice a particular in Alan Whitehead's position, the argument would be unfairly biased bearing in mind the governments supposed standing.

If his actions force a more even debate then he's doing a good thing by all concerned, surely?

there really is no need for nuclear power in Europe because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and currently provides power for about 100,000 Californian homes. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/r
eports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green
_house/no_nukes.htm .

It's nice to see Alan Whitehead expressing a view that might not endear him to Tony Blair. Throughout the long years of Blair's domination I don't remember it happening once. But there again, perhaps I wasn't paying attention.

Come on then, Big Al, what's your answer to future energy demand ? Offer ourselves up to kidnap, ransom and blackmail by the likes of Gazprom ? Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.

TGR is spot on and Robert Palgrave is completely wrong. Starting from basics you need to have guaranteed continuity of supply and short(ish) lines of transmission. What I still cannot understand is why the Greens have this terror of nuclear energy. It's proved to be clean and safe in Western Europe and we demand such impossibly high standards of safety from it compared to any other form of energy generation that when so much as a single particle gets out there is an outcry (from people like RObert). We obsess over nuclear waste when the amounts and the dangers are constantly overstated relative to simple things like switching on an electrical appliance or crossing the road. Regarding solar power, when we need it most (winter) is when supply is hardest to guarantee. How much overcapacity would be required when (say) there is a large high pressure system over Iberia or even North Africa? And would any sane person trust their power transmission to come all the way from North Africa? Remember, just one terrorist based outage in the Sahara and thousands of babies, old people and hospital patients would die here. Or how about a simple strike by power workers in France? The fact is domestic Nuclear power would be local, it would be cheap and it would be plentiful, now why the hell can't you listen to people like Professor James Lovelock and stop running so scared of it?

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission:-
Great ideas it seems but how can Europe be dependant once again from such unstable governments from North Africa and the Midle East?

Good to see that CSP is in the debate.. Where do the pro nuclear folk think the Uranium is coming from? Khazackstan has 40% of the worlds Uranium - the rest is in Australia and Canada so politically unstable or transporting uranium accross the world in tankers? Also under current demand is likely that uranium sources will be depleted by 2050 for the majority of countries with nuclear energy. Morroco is a county that could provide the right political climate for investment.. In countries like Australia which are closing hydroplants due to lack of water and deciding to priorites drinking water over water for crops new water intensive nuclear energy is not a sustainable option..finally lets build the new nuclear facility in central london at the old Battersea Power Station - any objections?

alpine_saint wrote:
Come on then, Big Al, what's your answer to future energy demand ? Offer ourselves up to kidnap, ransom and blackmail by the likes of Gazprom ? Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.

And I thought you only displayed your ignorance about football.

It's not my job to speak for Alan Whitehead but a quick glance at his website (www.alan-whitehead.
org.uk/) will show that he has long taken a serious interest in sustainable development, energy conservation and the environment in general. Since long before any of these causes became fashionable.

There would be less pollution and less risk to health from a nuclear station at Battersea than from the old coal fired station with no flue gas desulphurisation technology located there previously! In fact it would be preferable because of the possibility of COmbined Heat/Power and it it is only the disinformation and attitude of people like Henrymuss that prevents this beneficial technology So no - I have no objection to it, and before you jump in I would have no objection if Fawley was converted either. Henrymuss is factually incorrect in stating that nuclear fuel will run out in 2050, and even if it did (which it won't) that's no reason not to use it because it will still bridge the gap until nuclear fusion comes on stream - or are you gearing up to be scared of that as well? Henrymuss is also incorrect in inferring that Modern Nuclear Reactors use excessive water - in fact they have closed systems a bit like domestic central heating. Condensation is undertaken using seawater anyway. If you want to see Global warming-causing water vapour then go to Drax, not to Sizewell. Also, Nuclear fuel has been safely trasnported round the globe for the last 50 years with not one single injury let alone death, yet Henrymuss talks as though this is some new threat! We;ve had safe nuclear power here since the mid fifties for goodness sake with zero, yes zero fatalities and you cannnot even say that about windmills. I repeat, proposing Morocco as some kind of safe source of our power needs is insane compared to nuclear power. Henrymuss is only demonstrating an irrational fear by proposing these reidiculous things in preference to it.

For your reference Andy stats on uranium supplies come from "enery revolution - a sustainable world energy outlook" Jan 2007 greenpeace and EREC - I suggest you have a look at it as it outlines a nuclear phase out by 2020. Uranium supplies are discussed on p51. I have a few real issues with nuclear:
The emboddied energy to construct the powerstation, the diverting of billions of pounds of investment away from proven technologies such as concentrated solar power which could provide 5 times the electricity demand of europe, while producing no waste material or carbon emissions. Unfortunately a revolution is required here to move away from energy intensive mining and transportation of non renewable fuel sources with serious issues on waste disposal to utlising an abundant free energy source ie solar. I contest it is your view and not mine that will lead to setting a poor example to other countries while leaving a legacy of waste to our children.

alpine_saint wrote:
Come on then, Big Al, what\'s your answer to future energy demand ? Offer ourselves up to kidnap, ransom and blackmail by the likes of Gazprom ? Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.

There you go , I have missed something. When did Russia return to communism?
I must have missed the news. In fact the last time I saw news from Russia I saw Neo Nazi's supported by the police attacking a peaceful gay rights demo.

On another note they are opening up economically viable coal mines in Scotland again with a 90 year + supply. Can we first re-investigate our natural resources before plan to get fried in a Nuclear accident?

I'm sorry Henry but that is typical Green misinformation. The quoted supply of Uranium-235 is based on current world prices and there is around 70 years at today's prices. If the price goes up more in the ground becomes viable and There is around 10 times more uranium-235 in the ground than your forecast shows. This is no different to coal or oil - at 1970 prices oil would already have run out because what there is would be too expensive to extract. Greenpeace are deliberately misleading and it will come back to bite them if they keep doing it. Moreover if we built fast breeder reactors that use more plentiful uranium 238 there is enough fuel for billions of years. This Green minsinformation and propaganda will stop people believing anything they say. Regarding solar power, what we need is uninterruptable supplies, which the solar energy cannot provide. In case nobody noticed, it gets dark in Morocco every day, and it also gets chilly at the same time so just when we go to turn on the kettle there's an 8 hour power cut. Is that the world we want to live in? And what are we going to use to bridge that gap? What if the windmills aren't turning? What of we're between tides?Also regarding this Green myth about nuclear waste, a large fission reactor will produce only around 3 cubic metres only per annum (it would all fit into a single small room). It is usually stored safely in deep water tanks in Sellafield for around 40 years after which it has lost over 99% of its reamining radioactivity. yes I agree it is still hazardous but only if you built it into an igloo and tried to live inside it. Why are Greens so terrified of nuclear power? Is there is some kind of hidden anti technological agenda in Greenpeace? If you want to keep your children warm, dry, clean and safe go nuclear.

Nobody has ever got "fried" by a nuclear reactor, not ever, anywhere, not even in Chernobyl if you check what hapened there. But millions of people have suffered asthma and worse from inhalation of hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides from burnt coal gases. And you want to open open up new coal mines because you think it's "safer"? Kindly Explain the logic behind that!

Ian wrote:

alpine_saint wrote: Come on then, Big Al, what\'s your answer to future energy demand ? Offer ourselves up to kidnap, ransom and blackmail by the likes of Gazprom ? Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.

There you go , I have missed something. When did Russia return to communism? I must have missed the news. In fact the last time I saw news from Russia I saw Neo Nazi's supported by the police attacking a peaceful gay rights demo. On another note they are opening up economically viable coal mines in Scotland again with a 90 year + supply. Can we first re-investigate our natural resources before plan to get fried in a Nuclear accident?

Can someone point out to me where I implied anything about Russia being Communist again ????

And as for "investigating our natural resources" rather than being "fried", what is sod's name does this poster think the CO2 emissions from his "natural resources" are going to end up doing ? Have you not heard of Global Warming ???

alpine_saint wrote:

Ian wrote:

alpine_saint wrote: Come on then, Big Al, what\\\'s your answer to future energy demand ? Offer ourselves up to kidnap, ransom and blackmail by the likes of Gazprom ? Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.

There you go , I have missed something. When did Russia return to communism? I must have missed the news. In fact the last time I saw news from Russia I saw Neo Nazi\'s supported by the police attacking a peaceful gay rights demo. On another note they are opening up economically viable coal mines in Scotland again with a 90 year + supply. Can we first re-investigate our natural resources before plan to get fried in a Nuclear accident?

Can someone point out to me where I implied anything about Russia being Communist again ???? And as for \"investigating our natural resources\" rather than being \"fried\", what is sod\'s name does this poster think the CO2 emissions from his \"natural resources\" are going to end up doing ? Have you not heard of Global Warming ???

Certainly.You infered it in this statement 'Then again, I bet all you lefties would love finally having the Russians in control of our country.' Lefties plus Russia. You explain.What in'sods name ' do you mean???

Fried maybe a loose term. But I do fear unsafe nuclear reactors run by private companies. While the short term benefits might seem ok I think the long term disposal of the wate counter the argument that it is enviromentally safe.

I take the environmental point about coal but better the devil you know.

Seems even the Americans are ahead of Andy's thinking... Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California April 2006 the report shows how the technology can use salts to retain extra capacity solar energy to release providing a further 6hr after the sun has gone down. global warming is showing that peak demand will be in summer and not winter it will sort us out just fine - all thats lacking is a bit of investment and cooperation with our north african or Spanish colleagues and moving away from nuclear.

henrymuss wrote:
Seems even the Americans are ahead of Andy's thinking... Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California April 2006 the report shows how the technology can use salts to retain extra capacity solar energy to release providing a further 6hr after the sun has gone down. global warming is showing that peak demand will be in summer and not winter it will sort us out just fine - all thats lacking is a bit of investment and cooperation with our north african or Spanish colleagues and moving away from nuclear.

These are the kind of alternatives we need to be looking at.
Not pandering to the Nuclear lobby.

Sorry Ian but there is no "Nuclear Lobby" here and if there was I'm not in it, but it is a typical tactic of someone who has no answers to try and rubbish an argument by making out his opponent is part of some mysterious conspiracy rather than just answering the questions. Robert, leaving aside the fact that the USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear energy, you question uranium mining as a means to obtain fuel but you are quite happy for vast quantities of these mysterious "salts" to be dug up and shipped from somewhere and then gamble the future of our children on them even though it is a totally, totally unproven technology. Continuity of Supply is the one thing that none of these "Green" alternatives can provide and it is the one problem you try to avoid answering. You talk glibly of our "colleagues" in North Africa. I don't know about you but I have seen no reasons to trust my children's or my grandparent;s lives to any African state. Have you? Regarding our own energy production, every winter the British Isles sit under at least one massive cold anticyclone when there is almost no wind anywhere. When the tides turn we would face a sudden and immediate defecit measured in gigawatts, and every sensitive electrical device could be severely damaged by any subsequent surge. I have no problem with new technologies contributing ad hoc to the National (or International grid) but you have to have a steady baseline supply. Maybe the answer could be Solar PLUS nuclear but it can never be Solar on its own. Nuclear energy is green too. If you can accept that we could both be happy!

I said Robert when I meant Henry. duh!

Clearly Allan Whiehead is trying to catch some votes by supporting popular causes. He is a tired, opportunist, unprincipled and lazy MP and has no hope of retaining the Southampton Test constituency compared to John Denham who takes a stand on controversial and unpopular issues even at the risk of opposing the Cabinet or his party. Whitehead has no guts or principles of his own and Labour will loose Test if they renominate him again. It was always a marginal seat. Say goodbye to Whitehead

I didnt say that the Nuclear Lobby was here. I mentioned pandering to the Nuclear Lobby, big difference.
I dont profess to know alternatives but I dont trust Nuclear and the leaders that promote it.

What do I base that on? Well I am no scientist, maybe you are so maybe you could explain your reasoning and answers to me , an honest lay person.
So to me the issue is trust and I dont trust Nuclear in the hands of our world leaders, especially the type of leader in the US who wouldnt sign up to Kyoto, I mean how green was that.

Ian, that's a fair enough. I don't think I could say anything that would convince you to change your mind, but you could put your own mind at rest. I am very pro nuclear simply because it has such a tiny downside compared to all the alternatives. I don't trust Greenpeace or environmental groups because there is a sinister undercurrent of selective "anti globalisation" that upon analysis is in reality an anti Western, anti capitalist prejudice. We need continuity of supply that doesn't harm the planet and for the sake of my family I want this country to be in control of that supply, not Morrocco, not Chad, not Libya, not Tunisia, definitely not Russia, and no not even France!