Britain faces a severe energy crisis which has been caused by a combination of an increased population, privatisation, failure of forward planning and the closure of coal-fired power stations.
Once the immigration problem has been dealt with, demand for power will go down. This by itself will not solve the problem, but will significantly alleviate it.
The BDP is urgently committed to a policy of national energy independence, based, as far as possible, on renewable energy sources.
Key BDP Energy Policies
– We shall fund research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy sources and transmission systems, such as wave power, hydrogen fuel, and nuclear energy.
– We shall end the current government’s policy of meeting Britain’s Copenhagen obligations, which are based on the unproved science of ‘man-made’ global warming.
– We shall increase nuclear power generation with a view to providing 40 percent of the UK’s energy requirements. The UK was once a world leader in nuclear power but the technology was discouraged by successive governments and exploited abroad. The last world-class British nuclear power company, Westinghouse, was sold by the Government in 2006.
– We shall ensure that nuclear power stations in Britain are returned to state ownership and not run for the profit of foreign investors.
– We shall cease the pointless construction of inefficient wind turbines. So far, over 2000 have been built, at vast public subsidy, but they contribute less than one percent of the UK’s energy needs. Billions have been earmarked by the Government for their ongoing expansion — which forms the essential part of our EU obligations to generate a percentage of our energy from renewable sources by 2020.
– We oppose the thesis behind ‘carbon capture’. This is a technology that not only doubles the price of electricity but is undeveloped and potentially environmentally damaging.
– Britain continues to possess significant reserves of coal, sufficient perhaps for several centuries depending upon the rate of consumption. We shall therefore support the construction and reconstruction of coal-based generation plants, with the most modern clean air technology.
– We shall repeal the ill-informed Climate Change Act and all related EU legislation that is detrimental to our interests, including the EU’s Carbon Tax.
3
In view of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima – three reactors in complete meltdown! plus explosding spent fuel pools – it has been shown empirically, despite endless assurances to the contrary, that nuclear power is not safe. The French nuclear giant Areva allegedly described Fukushima as “… the greatest disaster of modern times…” I very much hope British Nationalists will take a lead, together with the Germans, and undertake to phase out nuclear as soon as possible.
Absolutely correct. We need a Nationalist party to be totally at the fore-front of the campaign to phase out Nuclear Power, not dragging behind!
An interesting point to debate I think, and worthy of a seperate article.
Over the past several years, there have been several large jet aeroplane crashes, each one incinerating litteraly hundreds of people. There have been dozens of severe rail crashes in various parts of the world, to similar effect. On UK roads, about 3000 people die every year in accidents (many of them children) very likely a greater number than died due to radiation induced cancer from Chenobyl over a thirty year period.
Can we therefore conclude from these examples, that planes, railways and cars are unsafe and therefore unacceptable? Most of us still use these things, because we want the benefits they provide and therefore tolerate the risk.
For any human activity, we must always balance risks against benefits. If a big nuclear accident occurs, the additional radiation may well reduce the life expectancy of the people exposed. This includes anyone who eats food grown on contaminated soil decades into the future. Ultimately, a really big accident could reduce the life expectancy of several thousand people.
To make the decision on whether this is acceptable, we need to balance the risk against the benefits we get, i.e. what if the chance of a big accident in the UK in the next 1-100 years, what would be the consequences (financial and human), how much would it cost us, in terms of our income and the way of life to which we have grown accustomed, if we use something else (i.e windpower, coal, gas, etc). We need to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages and make a decision. If a 100% renewable energy economy protects us from the one in a million chance of nuclear accident, but the cost of it requires us to live post-Soviet, east-European living standards, in which none of us live so long, then suddenly that one-in a million chance of a not-so-nice radiation leak begins to look not so bad.
Renewable energy has a bad name in the BNP community, and Nuclear energy is put forward as a viable alternative to all of our energy problems. However, Geothermal energy has been overlooked, and isn’t mentioned on the BNP manifesto, despite its potential, of which there is a lot in the UK.
The Eden Project in Cornwall is in the process of buiding a geothermal plant that will provide energy for the project, and have enough left over to power 5,000 nearby homes. So the potential for the energy source is large, and should be part of nationalist policy.
“…on the unproved science of ‘man-made’ global warming…”? Unproved? By whom?
SSTAR could be the answer for nuclear power
When nuclear power was first thought about, there were two strands of research. One was the use of Uranium as a nuclear fuel, the other was Thorium. Uranium won the day and the reasons are simple. Because Uranium is scarce, and the elites (Rothschild, every governments master), control the mining companies. Thorium is plentiful and widely distributed across the planet, even the sea. Thorium reactors are safer, run at low pressure and produce less higher-isotope material which have to be dealt with afterwards. But most importantly for the elites, Uranium is weaponisable, Thorium isn’t, so Uranium was chosen so that bombs could be made. In the interests of a few (governments Masters again) yet again.
Which brings us on to SSTAR.
SSTAR is designed to be a self-contained reactor in a tamper resistant container. The goal is to provide reliable and cost-effective electricity, heat and freshwater. Whereas a typical conventional uranium nuclear power station will generate in the region of 1 GigaWatt of electricity, this Thorium reactor will be available as a 500 ton, 100 Megawatts version, enough for 100,000 homes (in the UK at least), or a 200 ton, 10 Megawatts version. All with no requirement for any particular weather to make it work. It is a completely sealed unit – designed to be set down and operate without maintenance for 30 years until it’s fuel is spent and then replaced with another unit or refuelled onsite if appropriate. SSTAR make power generation convenient in two ways; decreasing staffing costs by dropping them close to zero and eliminating the bulky infrastructure required for larger plants. The design can be adapted to produce hydrogen for use as an alternative fuel for cars, buses, taxis etc. A thought. There are almost 10,000 petrol stations in the UK. Our present generating capacity is 80 GigaWatts. What if we replaced those 10,000 petrol stations with 10,000 10MW versions of this reactor; sealed and safe generating electricity and producing hydrogen. We would produce more than enough electricity to meet our needs and fuel our cars – the only by-product from cars etc. would be water. The benefits of SSTAR
SSTAR could be the answer for nuclear power
More detailed information about SSTAR available here.
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/pdfs/07_04.3.pdf
Now that the NWO has become to ashamed to admit that it is scared of China, there is the opportunity to use thorium reaction for energy production.
(Party Member) The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a stinging attack on Britain’s energy firms, describing the latest round of price increases as ” inexplicable”. The former oil company executive said: “The impact on people, particularly on low incomes, is going to be really severe”. He also says “Energy firms have to make a profit”. (The Church of England own £7 million pounds worth of shares in Centrica and £6 billion pounds worth of shares in S.S.E. according to Sky Business). He also says that these firms also have “a moral duty”. He, just like the recently foolish-looking Conservative and Labour parties, does not offer any solution. Our Party does! Under the doctrine of ‘ Natural Preference’ our Party will take into state ownership the entire energy industry so that it is owned by the British people for the benefit of the British people.
(Party Member) My figure of £6 billion (above) worth of Church of England investment in S.S.E. is wrong. It should be £6 Million. However,people would be astonished if they knew the true wealth of the Church of England. They are the nation’s third largest land owner and are bringing in great wealth by selling underused churches to people who wish to turn them into mosques!
(Party Member) A promising figure of 69% agreement with taking the energy industry into public ownership was revealed in a recent poll. This is a very high level of support for a major British Democratic Party policy that would see British resources used for the benefit of British people and not foreign owners and wealthy shareholders. With 64% saying they have cut back on energy consumption and more worryingly 25% saying they will have to put up with “unacceptably cold homes” this winter, our party policy is clearly correct and will make a valuable part of our first General Election manifesto.
It will also help to distinguish our party from the ultra-Thatcherite economic globalists of UKIP who, apart from their moderate position on a certain social issue and anti-EU stance, really offer nothing positive to the British people. Indeed, one of the main reasons why we should withdraw from the EU is so that we can have a pro-British industrial policy. If, in the highly unlikely event we ever had a UKIP government and they took us out, we wouldn’t be able to take full economic advantage of our new independence as they embrace globalist economics even more than the Lib/Lab/Con party does!
The awful price increase announced last week by British Gas for 3 million dual fuel customers is disgusting. Particularly as wholesale prices have been going down. The Conservatives wanted to control bad behaviour like this , but with the weakened position of the Prime Minister , now have removed this great Policy from their agenda. There is now going to be one of those awful enquires that achieve nothing but buy time to let the fuss die down. My biggest shock regarding all this was to learn that many Conservative M.P.’s WERE AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE on this subject as controlling prices WAS MARXISM ! This disgusting attitude to the plight of our hard pressed people reminds me of the WONDERFUL POLICY OF THE BRITISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. We will take into the PEOPLES OWNERSHIP all energy , water and Railway industries and in the interest of us all ! THIS IS NOT MARXISM BUT NATIONALIST COMMON SENSE THAT HAS A DESIRE TO HELP ALL OUR PEOPLE.