Eeyore wrote:

Sundug wrote:

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the
test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure
Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for
lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

What's wrong with either of those ?

Nuclear power is the only sensible option if you believe in radical reduction of CO2
emisions from electricity generation and you want that electricity to be available for
more than a few hours a day.

Bring it on. There are some excellent French designed reactors that have been quietly
and uncontroversially (and safely) supplying 80%+ of France's electricity needs for
decades. And inexpensively too btw.

The British power reactors were an economic farce dictated originally by the need to
use them to produce plutonium for bombs and then finally by the adoption of a
'techonology too far' perhaps in the case of the AGR which was 'too clever by half'
mostly and as a result cost an utter fortune.

Graham


Agreed on all counts.

The problem is the USA in particular, and the west in general are only
to aware that once you have reactor grade uranium, you can make a fast
breeder reactor to create weapons grade plutonium. Nasty.

However conversely a separator capable of achieving reactor grade
uranium is not NECESSARILY at all capable of refining down to weapons
grade URANIUM.

Which is why there are UN nuclear inspectorates..although these seem to
being killed off a shade rapidly.(Kelly)