Certainly better Insulation in homes should be the top of our agenda in tackling demand, especially if one believes reports about the state of the gulf stream. The problem with reducing demand though is that it takes time, it will also take some tough decisions along the way. Maybe in the future we’ll have houses that retain heat as well as those in Finland do while having solar panels fitted to the roof as standard, and all our appliances will be twice as efficent - maybe this day is 5 decades away though.

While all this is going on, Nuclear power plants will do for now.

On nuclear waste, I alluded to the article in Scientific American (http://tinyurl.com/ads4e) which explains why this is no longer a problem. In a nutshell, currently there are two types of waste produced:
1) Waste with a massive half-life
2) Waste which degrades to natural radioactivity within a lifetime.

The problem is not the second on the briefest of lists, it is the first. And by the time the next generation of reactors can be planned and built, the reprocessing process and use of new designs of nuclear plants will have removed the creation of said material.

One advantage of the modern plant designs is the amazing reduction in the volume of waste produced: if modern plants were commissioned to replace the existing stations, Britain would be able to maintain its 20-25% share of nuclear-generated power and add just 10% to the UK’s volume of existing nuclear waste over their 60-year operating lifetime.

sustainable development and green policies are after all, issues the Tory party haven’t exactly ‘pooh poohed’ now is it?

and even if they had, what would that prove?

Transport is not affected by the power supply choices made about power stations (yet) but it seems very strange for a green campaigner to be saying that the issue should not be addressed because it doesn’t make enough difference… Their dispropportinate attacks in other areas (cars rather than planes, allowing the monopolisation of the railways etc) would suggest that any self-respecting left-wing green would be clamouring for a nuclear powered Britain.

Insulation etc. is a solution borne out of the climate-change era which nuclear power would relegate to the past. What does it matter what power people use if it is their money they are spending and if the environment does not suffer as a result?

The answer is, it does not.

The environment is the left’s darling because it allows them to interfere in people’s homes (boiler efficiency) and in transport (plugging public transport etc). If nuclear were adopted and the environmental impact of carbon emmissions became a concern of the past, what would the left use as an excuse for control?

Recycling is an altogether different kettle of fish (do they smell?) and does not require expense on the part of the ‘controlled’ — the left would find little leverage in that then!

Eitehr way we need new powerstations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1688032,00.html

“And there are plenty of reasons for relying on Russia (and Kasakhstan/Uzbekistan) for their uranium, just like there is plenty of reason to rely on some of the corrupt African states.”

I think price might be a heavy consideration, with France buying more uranium from the likes of Canada, and thus driving their prices up.

And there are plenty of reasons for relying on Russia (and Kasakhstan/Uzbekistan) for their uranium, just like there is plenty of reason to rely on some of the corrupt African states. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be able to stockpile, as you point out we should, as demand would outstrip supply. My original point was that things are not all that rosey.