OT Another reason the get rid of fossil fuels.

I and many others agree we should have more nuclear power.

Tch Try to keep up.

• another one..

Only the brain dead can't see the future is nuclear. If only we invested the same in nuclear as we do in windmills we might be able to take ICE cars off the road.

Only the brain dead support pollution and oppose nuclear.

Indeed, any other renewable is going to be dependant on gas for at leat half its generation time.

You are so yesterday.

and 100% for its manufacture.

The amount of coal or gas you need to burn to make the concrete bases is stupendous.

Glass fibre resins are all petrochemical in origin.

Any copper used will be smelted using coal,

AS will any steel reinforcing.

'Fossil free' is a complete illusion, or delusion.

The only complte societies that dont use fossil fuel are low density hunter gatherers running almost a neolithic lifestyle, and people living as we did in the bronzxe or perhaps early iron age.

Landscape painters of the 19th century painted places that still exist today. Significantly though, there are more trees today than appear in those paintings.

We dont build ships and houses out of oaks so much.

We use iron and steel and concrete. All based on fossil fuel. Bin that and we cut down the oaks.

If you want to save trees, burn coal.

You may well be right that the future of nuclear power lies with other States - mainly China, India and other parts of Asia.

OTOH when the IMF arrive to bail out our economy I stand ready to do my bit by tackling the excess profits from stupid FITs: they can't be cut (ECHR) but IMO they can be made subject to a windfall tax.

The Wests has been attacked and brought to its knees by Marxist ideology.

Destroying its economy by promoting renewable energy and demonising mnuclear is just another part of that.

But after we've left the jurisdiction of the ECHR? If leaving the EU allows us to do away with FIT, and Harry's smugness will go with it at the same time, I'm all for leaving!

Yes lets go back to living in shacks in the wood and burn smelly old logs instead. Brian

Forward to the past.

Only that AIUI we are/were going to do both at the same time BIMBW.

We ought to, I agree, since the ECHR is no longer what it purports to be.

Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that "no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law". FITs are legal rights protected by that.

Bear in mind the same provision of the ECHR is relevant to any government seeking to (re)nationalise (although it does not stop them or guarantee compensation must be at market value).

But is a subsidy a possession? The panels may be, unless owned by a third party, but the subsidy?

But in the case of nationalisation, private shareholders can be said to be joint owners of the company, and arguably they 'possess' it.

The ECHR is not a part of the EU so what makes you think we will abandon an institution the UK was instrumental in setting up?

If brexit is to get out of the ECHR then you voted for the wrong thing.

Who said we were leaving the ECHR that we helped to start a long time before the EU existed?

I can't see any reason why we would even after brexit and certainly not at the same time.

To do so would be an infringement of my human rights for us to be a member of the ECHR.