• An open letter to Chris Huhne from Mr. Simon Conway-Smith.

      1 comment

    Above is Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Below is an open letter to him from Mr. Simon Conway-Smith.

    Dear Mr Huhne,

    I wrote to you recently regarding the whole climate change debate including the now non-tenable position of the entire IPCC and similar such organisations that have hijacked and politicised science, the now well documented untruth of the Greenhouse Gas theory, the understanding that pollutants and CO2 are entirely different things (the former bad, the latter good) and your responsibility to provide the nation with a truthful analysis and corresponding policy on future mass energy supply. I am most disappointed that you did not reply, providing your rational, factual, economic and social reasons for your beliefs and policies. I suspect it is because you cannot support them with any believable rationale.

    It is becoming increasingly clear with well documented and factual studies that an energy policy based on renewables, including predominantly wind power, is nothing short of total stupidity. Wind Power is wholly uneconomic and also does enormous social damage, PV is very expensive and unable to scale, feed-in tariffs are socially and morally unjust, energy storage (hydro excepting) and carbon capture simply nonexistent figments of the imagination with no basis behind them, and CO2 based taxes knowingly based on unproven theory and so are deliberate deceit (which carries personal culpability).

    Even on the CO2 issue, a gas which by the way is totally harmless at even levels many times higher than the current ~385ppm in the atmosphere, which is why submariners work quite happily at levels of 8,000ppm or more (please see the attached Q&A document written by Prof. Edward F Blick, PhD, a former USAF Weatherman and retired meteorology professor), a study has shown that a nuclear power station provides emissions savings hundreds of times higher than the equivalent sized Wind farm (based on actual operating output and not stated theoretical capacity).

    Wind power can never, repeat, never provide the proportion of the UK’s energy needs that many, including yourself, think possible, nor does it cause even 1MW of conventional power to be turned off because of its unreliability. Even gas fired power stations run much less efficiently and with more CO2 emissions when starting and stopping to back-fill wind power than when they run continuously. I’m amazed that this stark reality hasn’t yet kicked in, as the longer this pretence of renewable/wind energy is maintained, the harder it is on the poorer end of society to afford their energy bills. How many old people’s deaths is that going to cause?

    The future of mass economic power must therefore be sought in an entirely different direction, and whilst we can make coal fired stations ever cleaner and more efficient, a worthwhile aim in itself, and continue with some gas powered, a new nuclear process based on Thorium has huge potential. Why should we actively develop this? Here are several reasons including a summary of a very good article from The Telegraph by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, their International Business Editor, published on 29th August (also attached)…
    - It could largely remove our dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation
    - It is a much safer process than the uranium based one. Liquid Thorium-fluoride reactors (LFTR) can operate at atmospheric pressure and don’t require huge containment domes – unlike traditional nuclear reactors which contain high pressure steam. So the reactor cannot explode..
    - It is 200 times more energy dense than uranium
    - The fuel does not need to be shaped into pellets
    - The reactor can add fuel and remove waste at any time
    - Most of the fuel is used up in the reaction, much more so than current nuclear processes, alleviating the requirement for re-processing plants.
    - It would alleviate the need for wind mills, deepwater drilling, IPCC hockey sticks, or strategic reliance on the Kremlin
    - The scramble for scarce fuel is already leading to friction between China, India, and the West. Thorium is abundant and cheap. Thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance. The US and Australia are full of the stuff. So are the granite rocks of Cornwall.
    - Thorium eats its own hazardous waste.
    - Thorium can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner.
    - It is almost impossible make nuclear weapons out of thorium.
    - It could lead to a network of local pint-sized 600MW reactors that are lodged underground, can supply small local grids, and do not require a safety citadel.

    The Norwegian group Aker Solutions (with which I have no connection
    whatsoever) has bought the patent for the thorium fuel-cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator at its UK operation. They need major support by the UK government which will in turn help secure our future energy supply.

    It has been said that the one key to a nation’s prosperity is a cheap, mass energy supply. How true. The potential of Thorium based nuclear power must therefore be a major component of the UK’s future prosperity and I urge you to support it. We must end the silliness, unremitting folly of renewables and the nonsense of CO2, a policy that will be our ruin. That is your job.

    Yours faithfully

    Simon Conway-Smith, Cambridgeshire.

    • I notice the trend now is to frighten the public with “what if ” arguments. “What if global warming exists and what if co2 is the cause” etc

      Well, what if it really is possible that some guy walked on water 2000 years ago? What if switching my mobile ‘phone will cause the gas station to explode?

      In the former case my dear old mum used to threaten me with “there is a chance that this happened so you’d better believe it in order to save the world”

      In the latter case I have a reply which states that “though there can be no certainty of this, there remains a possibility of such a scenario and so we continue to see the need for caution”

      No! Show me the argument with some evidence leading to at least a reasonable level of POSSIBILITY Mr Huhne and then you’ll get my support for all of this nonsense.

    Write a comment