<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/14058325?origin\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Your chance to blight a town, or maybe a county, you do not like.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Admittedly the list of blightables is not as long as one might like, and lacks a number of places that may well by twinned with the Land God Gave to Cain, but there is some scope for mischief:

A list of eleven sites that could be potential hosts to new nuclear power stations in the UK is published today. Members of the public now have a month to comment on the proposed sites before the nuclear planning consultation later this year.

And the places are Bradwell, Braystones, Dungeness, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa Peninsula, thus giving the chance for haters of the English - North, South, East or West - or of the Welsh the potential to nominate the butt of 'glow in the dark' jokes for years to come.

All facetiousness to one side, I am pro-nuclear energy, and it is a recurrent paradox that while no-one wants a nuclear power plant on their doorstep, they do become markedly more popular once they are employing the locals.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian

A thousand years ago...

Thursday, January 10, 2008
I asked "What is an area of competence for an elected mayor?" because of a Livingstone initiative: ""Under the headline '£70 billion - Nuclear Waste?' the Mayor invites Londoners to participate in the debate now taking place about energy policy. The posters will appear on tube stations across the capital from Friday".

I further commented, "As I have noted before in a post called 'Livingstone's nuclear straw man' posted at Anyone But Ken, which I cannot as yet lay hands on, it is inconceivable that a nuclear power station would ever be built in London, either in Hyde Park or deepest Croydon, as British energy policy has always been to site plants in coastal areas well away from population centres. So, KRL is explicitly addressing an area wholly outside his competence, both geographically and in terms of legislation. He can mouth off all he likes, but when it comes to us paying for his opinion to be plastered all over poster sites, a line has been crossed. Do I hear 'propaganda on the rates' redux? Quite apart from the direct cost of renting the sites (or is Transport for London compelled to give them gratis?), there is also the opportunity cost occasioned by others not being able to rent the sites".

So why the little meander along reminiscence boulevard? Because the Mayor is at it again:

"The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone today branded the Government’s decision to build new nuclear power stations as the mistake of a generation". More here, but anyone with a reasonably lively imagination will guess what he has to say.

I suppose I should admire the Mayor for having solved all of London's problems - otherwise, why would he take the time to ruminate on energy policy?

Labels: , ,

posted by Croydonian

Wee Eck and the Big Feartie - seconds out, round two

Tuesday, October 09, 2007
It looks as though what is pleased to call itself 'the Scottish Government' (as has been noted at the Devil's Kitchen) is really, really spoiling for a fight with what it refers to as 'the UK government'.

And what is the ostensible reason for the scrap? Nuclear power.

"The UK Government states that it has formed an initial view that new nuclear power stations are needed to ensure the security of energy supplies, and to tackle climate change....Our concern is that the UK Government has set out on a route to developing new nuclear power stations without adequately considering the alternatives, or indeed allowing the public to consider the alternatives as a part of this consultation. The reality is that the diversion of £ billions into nuclear power station development could have a significant adverse impact on research and development of long term clean energy alternatives to nuclear power. Unlike nuclear power, these clean energy alternatives are sustainable, and through export of energy and the related technologies could add hugely to Scotland's prosperity".


That our Caledonian neighbours are trying it on is not hugely surprising, and indeed, not hugely interesting, but the language it uses is.

There are no references to Westminster, national government or the United Kingdom (just 'the UK'), and one 'British' (British Energy, the company) in the publication called 'The Scottish Government’s response to the UK Government Consultation on the “Future of Nuclear Power”', but manages to fit in upwards of 90 references to Scotland and Scottish (excluding the footnotes) in around 3,600 words - let's say one 'scot' per 40 words. Think they might be suffering from a collective chip on the shoulder? The overall effect is rather like being trapped by the pub bore.... Anyway, at the risk of over-interpretation, language has consequences, and 'UK government' is a vastly colder phrase than 'the British government' and I do not doubt that the terminology has been chosen very deliberately.

Labels: ,

posted by Croydonian