The Nuclear 'Choice' So Far

Alistair Darling Key Points - Energy Statement (May 2007)

• Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (May 2006)
• Secretary of State for Scotland and at the Department for Transport
• Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (June 2001 - May 2002)
• Secretary of State for Social Security (July 1998 - June 2001)
• Chief Secretary to the Treasury (May 1997 - July 1998)
• Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (July 1996 - April 1997)
• Opposition Spokesman on the City and Financial Services (1992 - July 1996)
• Opposition Home Affairs Team (1988-92)

Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling is the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. The government would (allegedly) consult further, in a process which will run until October, before making the final decision, but in the construction industry's interest to provide a very dangerous future and in so doing making a shedload of money on the public's collective back.

• Consult further? To consult would be a good start. Anyway, consult whom? Certainly not the end users. Those who will pay for it in two ways. Financially and through ill-health (at best) and death (at worst). Short-sighted government sees only money, money and more money. It's the King Midas syndrome. And lots of glory, of course.

• Hitler and Stalin imagined the glory too. And Pol Pot had his lethal ideology. Kill one or two and you're defined as a murderer. Kill several and you're a serial killer, but murder a million (or two, or three) and you're described as a hero. Destroy a nation and it's genocide.

To destroy all life on Earth: globicide?

The government would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying power supplies.

• There's that term again: CONSULT. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. This suggests that something is actually happening, doesn't it? But: emissions of what? Carbon dioxide, I imagine. That's the global political spin. Even scientists are swept up into it. But not all. Not by a long way. Funding is always jeopardised and not towing the line, makes the financial supply line shrivel away.

Mr Darling said it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate new nuclear plants. There were also important issues to consider, including waste.

• Creating opportunities for others to make even more money. No cost to government or taxpayer? But the future will require waste management and this will be funded by the taxpayer. After all, the end user is the problem. If it wasn't for the consumer, there would be no problem. Global warming has been created by the population on Earth. Though without a problem there's no way of making money. A circular argument: man creates the problem, but without man there is no problem and so no opportunity to provide a solution and make money. So, create the problem and provide a solution.

Mr Darling said a decision was required this year because new nuclear stations took a long time to build.

• Hurry along and just say, YES. Don't ask questions you're not being asked to comment. This is a democracy so say, YES.

• The sooner that construction is committed, the sooner the process becomes impossible to stop. And, of course, the sooner money can be made. And the less time there is to debunk the idea that the sole culprit of global warming is CO2. This is a scam, but the belief train is well under way. When the new problem becomes radioactive waste management, the idea of global warming will become less significant. It isn't, but it will seem so. Which is worse: death by fire or by flood?

New electricity meters will come with a real-time display showing energy use from 2008 and there will be a short term offer of free displays from energy suppliers for households to 2010 and the government says it expects everyone to have a smart meter within 10 years.

• I wonder how the 'roll-out' will happen. Who will be 'offered' the free meter? A two-year period to 'buy into' the scheme? To be followed by another 8 years of those paying for the device.

Don't ever forget this 2 year period of free installations (2008-2010)

• BUT: this only says the usage will be shown from 2008 and that there will be a short term offer of free displays. It doesn't state there will be a 2 year period of free installation, only a 2 year real-time display showing energy use. Consider how many car speedometers 'display' to a speed of well over the potential of the car.

• 'Accepting' such a meter for free is, of course, a very crude bribe. 'Acceptance', presumably, like in the wheely-bin culture. An offer you can't refuse (no pun). A forced solution and without any real consultation. Another fait accompli scenario. The ducking stool philosophy: if you drown you're innocent and if you live you're guilty. Such plug-in power meters are already available at around £25 or so and have comprehensive functionality. But it is more cynical to rub the user's face in the mess he's creating while making shedloads of money in the process.

£20m for public procurement of low carbon vehicles and an extra £235m for green transport research.

• £20m is just the first drop of funding (taxpayer = public procurement) as the flood gates start to open for low carbon (?) vehicles. To be followed by over 10 times as much for 'research' into green transport and so creating another new problem that will need a solution.

He said he had changed his mind on nuclear power, saying "I used to be sceptical" but had been persuaded by the need to cut carbon emissions as "nuclear is low carbon". It was also needed as Britain was running out of oil and gas, he said.

• The lobbyists have been very active using their "persuasion" skills. Not that they would need to do much. Someone inarticulate and brain-dead would probably be as effective. Almost like the party faithful at the conferences: converting the converted.

He said he was reluctant to say "let's abandon nuclear" because Carbon Capture and Storage "may never work" or be available.

• Reluctant? Wouldn't release the cash cow! Carbon Capture and Storage: new terminology to learn and get used to. It'll be heard enough in the very, very near future.

He said tidal power was "in its infancy" but the government wanted to encourage its development.

• Government is not interested. Anything showing common sense, but not yielding money is a non-starter.

He said there had not been enough research done on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions using tidal power, with all the emphasis placed on the negative impact on the immediate environment on the River Severn and other areas where wave power could be harnessed.

• Focus on the negative message and certainly not, not, not on the sensible long-term approach. Don't want to know. Not interested.

He said "there is a lot coal still available to me mined" in the UK but he could not force energy suppliers to buy it instead of imported coal.

• All the talking up of CO2 emissions and then suggest the source of coal. Sulfur dioxide as a problem too. Perhaps they'd like to overlook Thatcher's contribution to the problem. The decimation of the coal-mining industry. It goes nowhere as it just costs money and never makes any. The one that helped to created the capitalist-communist? Red-herring.

He said he wanted to "encourage" the extraction of UK coal where it was economically and environmentally viable.

A non-starter. A dazzlingly-bright, red-herring.

Smart meters