The Government has announced that it is going to spend a very large lump of taxpayers money to build a nuclear power station in a very remote, but very pretty, part of the north Somerset coast.
Hinkley C will cost £14bn to build (and fuck knows how many £bn to decommission, when it reaches the end of its life).
The nuclear power station will generate electricity for 5 million homes.
Well actually, no.
We are continually told that nuclear power is safe.
And yet, for reasons that escape me, we build these monstrous pieces of industrial splurge in some of the prettiest, yet some of the remotest parts of the UK.
Well here’s the elephant in the room.
Why, if nuclear power is so safe, are we not building our nuclear power stations where their output is most needed?
Why are we not building these safe pieces of electrical generation in London and the Home Counties?
Don’t tell me there’s no room for them, that’s
utter bollocks a terrible argument. Room can be found, if we look hard enough.
Let’s stop fannying about on this.
The people who use the output of nuclear power stations (predominantly the inhabitants of London and the south east of England) need to share the same landscape views that the people of some of the most remote parts of England, Scotland and Wales have
endured enjoyed for 50 years.
If a large conurbation of people use the end product of nuclear power generation, why shouldn’t they also enjoy the comfort, security (and the view), of these safe pieces of technology?
Fair’s fair, eh?
Let’s start to build two nuclear power stations in London – one north of the river, the other south of the river – and let’s build one in Birmingham, and also build another in Manchester.
Then let’s see how popular alternate sources of energy generation suddenly become.
Or am I being too cynical?