SO LET’S get this clear. Fact one: the Government believes that, properly designed and run, a new generation of nuclear power stations would be perfectly, absolutely, indubitably, demonstrably, assuredly and without qualification, safe. Got that? Safe. S-a-f-e. People who might live nearby can be assured, on the basis of impeccable scientific advice, that these power stations represent no danger at all: neither of low-level radiation, nor of a nuclear disaster.
Fact two: leaking electric cables are a much bigger problem than leaking water pipes. Up to 10 per cent of electrical power is lost in transmission. This is due to the resistance inherent in conductors. The longer the cables, the more power is lost. Put crudely, through long, slightly warmed power lines we are heating the outdoors. Unlike leaked water, which returns to the soil and irrigates city trees, lost electrical power is wasted irretrievably and forever. The waste can be minimised by short transmission lines: keeping the source of power-generation close to the populations and industries which use it.
Fact three: power stations need to be near rivers or the sea.
Fact four: on the banks of the Thames, the Millennium Dome and its site remain one of this Government’s biggest headaches. Poisoned land makes it unsuitable for housing; poisoned politics infuse the project with a toxin that seeps into new Labour’s entire reputation. John Prescott’s woes are only the latest example.
So why doesn’t Tony Blair pack up all his troubles in one horrific kit bag, and put the next big nuclear power station on the site of the Dome? He assures us it will be safe.
So what could be the objection?
shamelessly lifted from Matthew Parris in today’s Times
Impeccable logic.
*smiles*
It would give the good Doctor something else to have to defend from the invading evil alien hordes, too!
Great idea, we could call it yfel wulf…
This gets my vote!
It’s an eff-off huge terrorist target right at the heart of London, perhaps? 😉
There’s a reason I can’t put my finger on about that being maybe not such a good idea.
Something to do with mass destructive powers and London.
Oh well.
I’ll bite
1) they are lying
2) they’ve already sold off the Dome to make a super casino
3) they’re lying
4) London used to have 44 power stations during World War 2. It meant that when the Luftwaffe bombed London, they might take out a power station but there was plenty of redundancy and it was possible to connect up to another station.
5) lying they are
6) Any new management must centralise what’s distributed, and disperse whatever is centralised.
7) perchance they prevaricators be
8) er something else!
Re: I’ll bite
I think you’ll find it was irony …
and I think the Dome sale might be falling through, as Prescott muffed that as well.
Gosh,really?
(I think you’ll find that that’s sarcasm!) 🙂
I’m not sure which would be worse, me not spotting such obvious irony, or you not spotting that I’d got it and replying in similar style. So let’s not worry about it.
I haven’t seen recent figures, but last time I heard anything about it, it was costing *us* £1million a month for security for the Dome site, so that means on top of the umpteen gazillion it cost to build and run, since it closed (on the last day of the old Millenium if you’re a pedant in the “Milleniums and Centuries start on Jan 1st xxx1” camp!) it’s cost us around £70 million just to stop it being nicked by pikeys and travellers (that’s topical sarcasm by the way, it would have been more likely to have been stolen (in bits) by local thieves, vandalised by the disaffected and disconnected London youth and trucked away in big chunks by larger more organised crime)
Every few months they announce another use for the dome (athletics or velodrome for the olympics, super casino, business park, business exhibition centre, music venue etc.) so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that Prezza has balled it up again.
Tonight, on BBC2: