But of course Greenpeace sucessfully screwed that system up too
so we only have sellafield left.

B2003

I don't think Greenpeace (et al) area that influential. They say don't keep
selling cars - cars keep getting sold. They say stop flying by 'plane -
'planes still take off every day, etc., etc. As I recall the reason Nukes
were stopped was because they aren't economically viable. Remember we used
(maybe still do) pay a Nuclear levy to fund the stations? Even with that
the government has to keep whacking a load of free money at the Nuclear
energy industry to stop it going bankrupt. If it's pay extra for renewable
energy or for Nuclear I'd rather go for renewable.

Having said that the economics of the future are likely to be very
different, and then Nuclear stands a chance.

"JB" wrote in message ...
But of course Greenpeace sucessfully screwed that system up too
so we only have sellafield left.

B2003

I don't think Greenpeace (et al) area that influential. They say don't keep
selling cars - cars keep getting sold. They say stop flying by 'plane -
'planes still take off every day, etc., etc. As I recall the reason Nukes

They're influential in areas people don't know much about. Cars ,
planes etc
are all familiar technology and people even if they're not technical
know
roughly how they work. Stuff like nuclear , industrial chemicals etc
are
areas most people know little about , therefor when someone comes
along jumping
up and down and shouting "DANGER!" people tend to listen. For some
reason scientists arn't generally trusted (unless they're advertising
some sort
of cosmetic) but arran sweater wearing unemployed tree huggers are.
Don't
get me wrong , I think enviromentlists do do a lot of good , but
sometimes
they really do talk out their arses and power generation wrt nuclear
and
renewables is one of those situations.

were stopped was because they aren't economically viable. Remember we used
(maybe still do) pay a Nuclear levy to fund the stations? Even with that
the government has to keep whacking a load of free money at the Nuclear
energy industry to stop it going bankrupt. If it's pay extra for renewable
energy or for Nuclear I'd rather go for renewable.

Given the parlous state of other types of power stations since they
were
privitised I'd say the government subsidy was required for them too.
I'd
also go for renewable if it were reliable, but the truth is you simply
can't
rely on wind blowing or waves crashing 24/7 and you need some sort of
conventional alternative. IMO crowing crops for burning would be a
good
solution given the amount of fallow fields and destitute farmers we
have but
for some reason that doesn't seem to be considered in britain.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

IMO crowing crops for burning would be a
good
solution given the amount of fallow fields and destitute farmers we
have but
for some reason that doesn't seem to be considered in britain.

Find me one destitute farmer with fallow fields. They're paid for those
fallow fields by the EU. The people farming in the hills or in unsubsidised
parts of agriculture might not be making anything, but the people growing
grain / oil seed rape etc. are making a fortune from EU subsidies. We pay in
more than we get out of the EU, so it's coming out of your back pocket.