@Daily_Express you missed the significance of Dinorwic to go for an attack on Miliband

This was a letter to the Daily Express 3/10/2014

I originally titled it “@Ed_Miliband carbon free electricity means nuclear, in terms of our present technology” but The Daily Express published this version, which completely misses the point of mentioning Dinorwic:

Published version  (6/10/2014):

Labour’s powerful green pledge must be explained

Fred Forsyth’s piece on Wind Turbines (“A ‘green’ con that’s costing us the earth” October 3 ) reminded me of a pledge made by Ed Miliband in his abridged Labour conference speech.
It worries me that few people picked up on it. Here’s a quotation from the transcript: “We’re going to commit to taking all of the carbon out of our electricity by 2030.”
There was no mention of how this was to be achieved.
Certainly not with wind turbines, nor any other ‘green’ solution.
It would have to be nuclear and it would take that long to get it up and running.

As Japan and France have accepted, there is no other way to achieve self sufficiency, without using fossil fuels.

Miliband was making an appeal to the naivety of  ‘the green vote’.

I can only assume that parts of the media and other political parties have been quiet is  because they do not understand the issues.

Original version:

Fred Forsyth’s deriding of Wind Turbines reminded me of a pledge made by Ed Miliband in his abridged conference speech.
It worries me that no-one else picked up on it.

From the transcript: “We’re going to commit to taking all of the carbon out of our electricity by 2030.”
No mention of how this was to be achieved.
Certainly not with wind turbines, nor any other Green solution, until there is a better means of storing electrical energy than that used at Dinorwic.
It would have to be nuclear and it would take that long to get it up and running.

As Japan and France have accepted, there is no other way to achieve self sufficiency, without using fossil fuels.

Ed was making an appeal to the naivety of The Green Vote. I can only assume that the Media and other political parties have been quiet is either because they do not understand the issues, or because they are hoping to use the same duplicity theirselves.

We need Nuclear alternative

It would be nice, therefore, if we had a coherent energy policy.

Unfortunately, the main driving force, for this, is provided by the Green activists, who have plenty of passion but little understanding.

The people in charge of our energy policy are (sic!) the politicians.

They, too, lack understanding, being motivated by popularity polls and the funds to maintain that popularity.

In turn the politicians look to the Energy Companies to implement policy decisions, whilst they, in turn, are motivated by profit.

The energy companies will cover the land with Wind Turbines, so long as the Taxpayer makes it profitable through subsidies and high tariff’s. The Energy Companies know that Wind Energy is unreliable and can’t, at present, supply our energy needs and wouldn’t look at them twice, without Political bribery.

At present, the only convenient means of supplying energy is through fossil fuels and Nuclear Energy.

None of the Green alternatives can provide a steady supply of energy, at a national level and until we have a Global Grid Structure, or, a viable and economic means of storing such energy, we will have to rely on Nuclear Energy.

Despite the latest situation in Japan, we need to look at the newer style of nuclear reactors, which are purportedly fail-safe, and bear in mind that the Radio-Activity released at Fukushima is, according to official figures, not especially dangerous to the population as a whole.

The radiation levels in Tokyo are, apparently, lower than those in Edinburgh, which, unlike those in Tokyo, will never drop.

The number of deaths, directly attributable to the accident at Fukushima, is likely to be lower than that recorded for pit deaths in this Country, or in the countries from which we are at present importing the coal, which we still heavily rely on.

It’s time that Government made policy based on what their Scientific Civil Service advisors are, we would hope, telling them.