By Jane Edwards.
It’s nearly three years since panic set in over the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear reactors by the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan. The tsunami claimed 16,000 lives. The reactor disaster killed nobody. But panic set in world-wide, with Britain delaying even further a decision of whether or not to proceed with the latest design nuclear power station at Hinckley Point.
Although, true to form, Britain dithered, Germany, unusually, panicked. With an eye on the next election and particularly the strength of the Greens in Germany, Angela Merkel made the closure of nuclear power stations and a massive switch to renewable energy her flagship policy. Well, two years later it gave her the electoral reward, but such is the mess-up over; energy that Germany’s well known economic effectiveness is now seriously threatened. This is how; it happened.
In March 2011 Germany switched off eight of its 17 nuclear reactors. The other nine will be phased out from 2015 to 2022. Meanwhile, under its new policy of energiewende (energy transition) a massive campaign of building wind along its North Sea and Baltic coasts saw wind farms growing like mushrooms. To complete the main renewable energy weapons, field after field stopped growing crops as they were carpeted with solar panels.
The irony of it all is that this pursuit of renewables as a means of saving the world from climate change has, in fact, increased Germany’s CO2 emissions. Two thirds of the resulting electricity price increase are due to new government surcharges and taxes to subsidise renewable energy – exactly as is being enacted in Britain. While electricity prices have rocketed and the middle classes receive handouts to put solar panels on their houses, pensions and wages have not kept up, hitting Germany’s poorest the hardest. Sounds familiar?
According to Nature, the international science magazine, this year German consumers will be forced to pay £17bn to subsidise electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants, which combined give power worth only £3bn in real market prices. To pay for this power economics strategy straight out of the Green Party handbook, surcharges on electricity for households have increased by 47% or £13bn in the past year alone. German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. Before long the average three-person household will spend around £80 a month for electricity, almost twice that of year 2000. Currently, more than 300,000 German households a year are seeing their power shut off because of unpaid bills. I can’t find the UK figures but I suspect they are heading the same way.
Supporting an Energy Mix
There were two key issues that led to my support for the British Democratic Party. One was its opposition to further immigration whilst helping those already here who wanted to stay to assimilate. The second is its support for a mix of renewables (which could include tidal power and wave power), nuclear power and latest clean-coal technology in its energy policy.
This does not mean that I am necessarily one of those proclaiming that there is no such thing as climate change. There always has been climate change, with several ice-ages, including when mankind did not exist. Now that the world has seven billion people upon it (plus ever-growing herds of cattle and sheep passing methane and CO2 laden wind into the atmosphere) part of this modern climate change can be contributed to being man-made. But it is only part and is quite small compared to the changes caused by volcanic activity plus the sun itself. The effects upon the earth of its eleven-year cycles of sunspot activity and the changing elliptical distance from the earth must surely have a greater effect.
In regard to the saga of the new 16bn nuclear energy plant planned for Hinckley Point in Somerset, its future has again been thrown into doubt by the European Commission publishing a damning critique last week stating that the deal with France’s EDF may constitute “illegal state aid”. One more reason in a growing list of why we should withdraw from the Socialist bureaucrat dominated EU. What would they do in response? Invade us?
3
(Party Member) For the record our policy is as follows; The British Democratic Party is committed to ending immigration. Talking about reducing net immigration is to connive in the replacement of the indigenous population. Illegal immigrants and immigrants who have committed serious criminal offences would be repatriated immediately. Other immigrants, especially the unassimilable ones, would be provided with incentives to return to their countries of origin and those countries should be provided with incentives to welcome them.
(Party Member) Our Party is totally OPPOSED to anything that results in POPULATION REPLACEMENT.
Ending immigration, although a great step forward for our country, would NOT solve the problem as the higher immigrant birth rate would ensure our replacement. As some say themselves “With the wombs of our women we will conquer Europe”. Hence our PARTY POLICY !
You are correct in quoting the vastly increased birth rate of immigrants being a major and serious problem. That is why nationalist policy must be to withdraw the right of British citizenship to someone who’s mother happen to make it to the UK and give birth, or, have many more children in the UK than they would in their own country which is and has been happening due to our family allowance payments. We have been funding our own destruction as a nation. This must be a priority for all nationalists.
John is correct. Unfortunately and deliberately the number of immigrants allowed to come here is now so great that merely stopping immigration will not permit the British people to keep our country. Anyone visiting London or seeing figures about schools where English is not the first language can grasp that – if they want to.
For a quiet life, the parties including UKIP simply avert their gaze from this reality and tell people that all is well. They are selling a massive deception.
There is plenty of money for generous resettlement arrangements from the foreign aid budget alone.
People have been taught that it’s unthinkable for people to leave despite the fact that huge numbers do it every year. It’s part of the propaganda. In reality, there are huge numbers here with regular family links to other countries who are here for economic reasons. They come and go anyway.
I thought Jane Edwards article was about the ineffectiveness and completely uneconomic usage of wind turbines. Her throwaway line about her joining the Brit Dems because of its call for a complete halt to further immigration apparently makes that the issue for discussion. Doesn’t anybody want to defend wind power or add that we should also consider fracking – particularly as nobody has died yet – because of its use to great advantage in the USA and less so in Germany?
However, back to immigration. John and Mike are both fully correct in their comments above that to stop all further immigration (personally, I would be more specific) is not enough. We must encourage those settled here to return to their homelands with the use of whatever resettlement grants are needed.
Mass wind turbines are a politicians’ vanity project like HS2.
I think the point of Jane Edwards’ article is that she is demonstrating her support for the BDP policy of a sensible energy mix, unlike Germany’s very confused stance on energy supply. I would like to see a greater emphasis on clean coal technology here in the UK myself. We have huge coal reserves and should be using them to keep our electricity running until we have found a truly viable alternative to fossil fuels. The ideal answer would be to find a way to harness nuclear fusion.
Without a proper and realistic replacement for fossil fuels we cannot possibly supply the energy needs of such an enormous population. The idea that windmills or wave power or solar panels could supply all our energy needs is simply idealistic dreaming. This could supply the needs of a much smaller population perhaps, but not that which we have now. One of the greatest challenges of the 21st century will be to find new sources of energy for our increasing world population. If we cannot do this we may find that this becomes a major source of conflict never mind the suffering. A sensible government would put as much resource as possible into research into real alternative energy sources, not the subsidized nonsense that the EU is now pushing.
The wind machine confidence trick has been played for so long on the British taxpayer it is a wonder anyone takes this these useless machines seriously. Vested interest keeps the lie going that wind machines can give the people clean and efficient energy.
The truth is that a wind machine in a constant wind, and there is never a constant wind, takes on average, 4 hours to make one megawatt of energy. Hinkley Point nuclear power station has been producing one megawatt of power in 4 seconds every 4 seconds since it was built. There is no contest. Nuclear is the only way forward. Politicians with investment in wind machine companies and allied industries should be exposed for what they are.
To comment on immigration, I would suggest that to end mass immigration into our country is not difficult. End ALL welfare payments to immigrants permanently. Start by ending family allowance in the UK totally. We are funding and encouraging parasites, foreign and British, to have more and more children as it is in their financial interest to do so. It is simple logic. Stop the welfare and you will stop the immigrants as well as the lazy parasites we have so many of in this country.
Further, the right to British citizenship to those who happen to be born in our country should end. Most immigrants born here have little or no allegiance to our country or to our people. In fact, some born in this country have committed acts of murder against our own people. Why are we putting up with this? It is not a complicated science to rectify these policies that allow our country to be robbed and our people killed and injured by immigrants born here and those still arriving here. It needs the will to carry these policies out and stop the invasion taking place every day in our country. Time is not on our side. We need action and action now.
(Party Member) With large numbers of people leaving Britain, having taken up our party’s re-settlement grant, Britain’s energy needs would be considerably less. Many other benefits of having a sustainable population size for our small country would soon be experienced and people would wonder why we ever had to endure the awful years of mass immigration in the first place.
Quite a few now campaign for a smaller population. Too many people for the country size.
If you think Britain is overcrowded then watch this space should Scotland vote for independence. Even including the wide open spaces of rural Scotland the density per mile in Britain is possible the highest in Europe. Scottish departure will result in around a 10% drop in population and 30% drop in land area.