Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

nuclear

  • 27-04-2012 11:13pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,131 ✭✭✭✭


    Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

    A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
    What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.


«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    ted1 wrote: »
    Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

    A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
    What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.

    After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it. I'm all for advancements but not something that can cause as much damage as nuclear fission. If someday fusion became a workable idea I would consider it as I've read its not as dangerous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,131 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Technology has moved on greatly since Chernobyl, look at what caused the accident to happen and you'll see how that could not happen again.. Remove the media hype from Japan and explain what exactly happened that would put you off.

    Come on guys, I did ask for a good debate not AH style replies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    GarIT wrote: »
    After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it. I'm all for advancements but not something that can cause as much damage as nuclear fission. If someday fusion became a workable idea I would consider it as I've read its not as dangerous.
    Chernobyl was a catastrophe, no question about it, but it could only have happened in the Former Soviet Union, the RBMK reactor design (only used in the USSR). It was never used outside the USSR because every nuclear regulator in the West knew it was a dangerous, unstable, ill-concieved p.o.s. But within the USSR the flaws were a state secret, unknown to the crew of newly trained electrical engineers that were handed the job of running a dangerous "safety test."

    Saying "no to nuclear" because of Chernobyl is like saying no to using ships and ferries, because of the coffin ships that carried emigrants from famine-era Ireland to the U.S back in the 1840s.

    As for Fukushima, yes that was a serious accident too, but nowhere near as severe as Chernobyl. Tepco, the Japanese government and people have clearly stated their intention to clean up the excess radiation and I am confident that they will be able to do so.

    Noone has died as a result of the Fukushima reactor failure.

    Ted is right about Thorium, from what I understand they're even safer than good Uranium reactors and even more efficient. For example this:
    202617.jpg

    Could supply a person with nuclear electricity for a entire lifetime.

    Under every concievable measure, cost per kw/h, reliability, dependability, CO2 produced per kw/h, land taken per Gigawatt, air pollution per kw/h and even in some cases radiation emissions per kw/h, nuclear electricity is the best, or near the best in class.

    If we choose to irrationally say no to nuclear, we WILL pay the price!


  • Registered Users Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Triangle


    I was once a pro nuclear supporter but now can't support the idea.


    Saying previous disasters won't happen again is not saying new disasters won't happen. Noone can predict what will happen and the possibility of having that type of polution in Ireland is unthinkable.
    Especially with the type of politicians/government we have where corruption 'seems' rife and the brown envelope is deemed more desirable that the people's well being. (This may be a bit overboard - but stating nuclear energy is safe is similar)

    I can't see it as a card to be played in Ireland and would hold out for fission (whenever it comes!)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    ted1 wrote: »
    Isn't time we explore the nuclear option. With peak oil approaching we need to have something in place. Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.

    A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
    What are people's thoughts, if you going to make points or raise concerns please keep it factual and provide credible reference.

    I agree with this point so why don't you abide by it?

    Where are the facts and credible references in the OP?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,131 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    well i was just opening the discussion. :)

    Each year WHO claim there are over 300,00 deaths caused by the burning of Fossil fuel. now granted 40% of fuel is used for transport, so approx 160,000 are due to generating heat and electricity.
    this alone is enough to convince me that the couple of thousand deaths caused since nuclear started is enough to warrant its roles out.

    there's some interesting read here, especially the comments.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    There's another thread on Nuclear power on the Environmental Science forum, a lot of the issues regarding nuclear are begin discussed particularly the storage of nuclear waste.

    You should have a read of it OP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    I rather Ireland stay a completely green country, We should work on environmentally friendly energy sources and then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,131 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Nuclear is green. What other environmental friendly methods of energy conversion are truly viable?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    ted1 wrote: »
    Nuclear is green. What other environmental friendly methods of energy conversion are truly viable?

    It has a potential massive environmental risk though. 99% of the time it is a green energy. If we properly rolled out wind, wave, hydroelectric and solar energy sources we could produce a decent amount of energy, then we always have the backup. If we had approx 5 wind turbines for every decently sized town we should power nearly everything from that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,100 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Three things that I have come across lately give me pause for thought;

    From New Scientist

    28/3/2012
    Underground nukes

    Yet there is a solution for future generations of nuclear plants: build all reactors and their primary cooling circuits underground. Decommissioning would then involve little more than sealing the entrance and walking away. The non-radioactive surface plant could be removed like any other obsolete building or industrial structure.

    sounds like a progressive idea

    13/4/2012
    Resilient reactors: Nuclear built to last centuries

    Using materials like molten salts or helium gas to cool the reactor and transfer its heat to turbines, "Generation IV" reactors will burn fuel with greater efficiency and could generate far less highly radioactive spent fuel than their predecessors. India plans to kick-start the Generation IV programme with the commission of its Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor early in 2013.
    Fast-breeders burn plutonium and other long-lived radioactive isotopes in spent fuel. More than that, they turn it into new fuel, turning waste into energy.


    But:

    A critical issue is finding materials that can better withstand the stresses created by the chain reactions inside a nuclear reactor.

    progress being made

    and:

    We will be importing nuclear generated power directly very soon (rather than through NI!)

    RTE

    23/4/2012
    Cable to connect Irish and British power supplies

    The world's largest cable-laying ship is in Dublin to work on the first direct electricity line between the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0423/cable-to-connect-irish-and-british-power-supplies.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,131 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    The underground option in intresting. I know there also building moderator release systems into the ceilings, that will auto release a moderator to slow down the chain reavtion, should a need arise.

    As regards exporting wind energy, I don't understand why we should be subsiding energy then exporting it. Exporting wind is truly a PR excerise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Triangle wrote: »
    Saying previous disasters won't happen again is not saying new disasters won't happen. Noone can predict what will happen and the possibility of having that type of polution in Ireland is unthinkable.
    Nonetheless, despite all the scaremongering, nuclear power remains the cleanest, most efficient, most reliable, and statistically safest for all forms of life.
    Especially with the type of politicians/government we have where corruption 'seems' rife and the brown envelope is deemed more desirable that the people's well being.
    Tell me, last time you bought a loaf of bread, did you have to queue outside a warehouse for two weeks? Go on a 14 year waiting list for your car? Last time you visited someone in hospital, did you have to bribe the nurse with 3 packs of (scare) Marlboro cigarettes?

    No? I didn't think so - but you would have had to do so in the Former Soviet Union which is where the Soviets basically blew up their reactor through a combination of grave RBMK reactor flaws, gross incompetence by all concerned, errors caused by the extreme authoritarian nature of everything there, and just a sprinking of unfortunate timing.
    (This may be a bit overboard - but stating nuclear energy is safe is similar)
    Few if any will claim that an accident cannot happen. Consider:
    "This ship cannot sink" ... said of a certain RMS Titanic which you might have heard something about recently, or:
    "This reactor is so safe you could put it in Red Square" ... said of the Chernobyl plant by its designer.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that a good nuclear program would avoid the type of conceit you refer to. Everyone involved from the lowest plant operators up to the nuclear regulators, would have to always assume that an accident could happen, and always consider what could cause an accident.

    Re: Chernobyl, I don't think I've ever said it could never happen again, only that the environment in which that accident occured is not relevant to the Western world.

    Subject to taking proper precautions though, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not chase the vast array of benefits that a nuclear solution would give us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    To those promoting nuclear power, how do you suggest to deal with the practically eternal legacy of the radioactive wastes generated?

    I'm not shooting down Nuclear power,(I'm only learning about it) but proponents never suggest how to deal with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,410 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    I'm not anti nuclear but I'm wary... Aside from safety my big concern is cost...
    When was the last time a nuclear power plant was built on time and on budget...
    ....presume we'd need at least 2 nuclear reactors,so that when 1 is being maintained,1 is working.
    How much of a nuclear build budget would be spent in Ireland, I know there's a lot of concrete but ....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ted1 wrote: »
    Let's stop messing around with low power wind turbines here and there and get right to addressing the issue.
    ...
    A good size fast breeder thorium based reactor would be perfect.
    Unfortunately, there isn’t a single thorium reactor in commercial use anywhere in the world. So you want to stop “messing around” with a technology that is providing a significant chunk of Ireland’s electricity (i.e., wind turbines) in favour of an experimental technology?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    GarIT wrote: »
    After what happened in Chernobyl and then what nearly could have happened in Japan there is no way I would support it.
    But nothing really happened in Japan? The reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it still remained relatively intact – how is that anything other than an advert for the safety of nuclear power?
    GarIT wrote: »
    I rather Ireland stay a completely green country, We should work on environmentally friendly energy sources and then buy energy from the UK if we need to, the cables are being laid right now.
    So it’s ok to import non-“green” energy, but not to produce it in Ireland?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    Under every concievable measure, cost per kw/h, reliability, dependability, CO2 produced per kw/h, land taken per Gigawatt, air pollution per kw/h and even in some cases radiation emissions per kw/h, nuclear electricity is the best, or near the best in class.
    I can’t help but notice that a certain form of waste is missing from that list, but anyway, does all the above still hold true if nuclear power generation is scaled up? What percentage of global energy demand can be met with nuclear without knocking it off the top (or from near the top) of the class?
    SeanW wrote: »
    Nonetheless, despite all the scaremongering, nuclear power remains the cleanest, most efficient, most reliable, and statistically safest for all forms of life.
    I’d love to see the basis for all those claims.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,100 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But nothing really happened in Japan? The reactor was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami and it still remained relatively intact – how is that anything other than an advert for the safety of nuclear power?

    amm....

    I understand that TEPCO leaked up to 12 tons of waste water containing strontium into the sea.

    leading to this claim:

    Scientists Find Post-Tsunami Radiation in Sea Kelp, Seek to Expand Research

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Scientist-Study-Nuclear-Contamination-Fish-Kelp-Japan-Tsunami-Ocean-California-Shores-146359685.html

    so if its reaching california in a more diluted form whats happening around the immediate coast of Fukushima and Japan where it is more concentrated?

    Radioactive material was released into the air and the sea and is present in their water supply and food.

    In my mind a question remains as to the truthfulness of the totals of radioactive material released, TEPCO are not known for being realistic with the truth.

    Should we decide to opt for nuclear power we must go in with our eyes open and not pretend it is 100% safe and that when it goes wrong this is the reality of what can happen. We would also have to trust the corporates who have not shined in the past, lowest bid, etc...

    even if we bury our plants a couple of miles underground :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Markcheese wrote: »
    How much of a nuclear build budget would be spent in Ireland, I know there's a lot of concrete but ....
    It is my understanding that the vast bulk of a nuclear reactors' day to day cost is spent on staff wages, as opposed to fossil fuels were most of the cost is (imported) fossil fuel.

    Though there would have to be some import of nuclear technology though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    I understand that TEPCO leaked up to 12 tons of waste water containing strontium into the sea.
    Ok. And?
    Oldtree wrote: »
    Should we decide to opt for nuclear power we must go in with our eyes open and not pretend it is 100% safe...
    Who said it was 100% safe?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,100 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But nothing really happened in Japan?

    did I misunderstand your post or were you being glib??

    something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I can’t help but notice that a certain form of waste is missing from that list, but anyway, does all the above still hold true if nuclear power generation is scaled up? What percentage of global energy demand can be met with nuclear without knocking it off the top (or from near the top) of the class?
    I'm not sure. I only know that our little country wouldn't change that big question very much by adopting nuclear energy but we would reap all the benefits.
    I’d love to see the basis for all those claims.

    Coal power plants releasing fly ash cause more radioactive emissions than a properly working nuclear power plant of the same specification:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

    "Clean" coal is actually quite filthy, and creates a waste problem worse than nuclear power by volume:
    http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/morecoalwaste

    Subsidies for wind energy in the U.K. top £1,000,000,000 per year.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html

    Land take: To supply 1/6th of the UK's energy needs (with wind power) would require an area the size of Wales
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

    Accidents: A good report from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum:
    http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

    Specifically, they have found 89 fatal accidents that killed 102 people, some of them members of the public. The causes include blade failure, fire, ice throw and structural failure.

    They claim:
    Some countries are finally accepting that industrial wind turbines can pose a significant public safety
    risk. In New Zealand, the government is set to change planning rules to give residents the right to
    veto wind turbines from being built within 2km of their homes. In Australia, the Victorian government
    has set guidelines forbidding wind turbine construction closer than 2km to houses. In Scotland, a 2km
    guideline is also in place between large wind farm developments and communities, though the
    guideline is often disgracefully ignored by the Scottish government planners. And in Canada, the
    Ontario Government has declared a moratorium on offshore wind projects and has proposed a
    reduction of noise from wind turbines from 40dB to 30-32dB, which would effectively extend the
    setback distance from homes.

    Counting the two crane operators that died during the earthquake at Fukushima, that's 87 more people than were killed in that accident.

    Estimated death rates per T/Wh of energy produced.
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
    Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

    Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
    Coal – China 278
    Coal – USA 15
    Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
    Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
    Biofuel/Biomass 12
    Peat 12
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
    Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
    Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
    Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
    Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

    Oh and yes, as I've been warning about since 2007, there's also the indisputable fact that irrationally opposing nuclear energy almost always means saying Yes to Coal, as shown in Germany.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html

    That is a mistake I want no part of.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    The economics of nuclear power have always been questionable. The fact that consumers or governments have traditionally borne the risk of investment in nuclear power plants meant that utilities were insulated from these risks and were able to borrow money at rates reflecting the reduced risk to investors and lenders.

    However, following the introduction of competitive electricity markets in many countries, the risk that the plant would cost more than the forecast price was transferred to the power plant developers, which are constrained by the views of financial organisations such as banks, shareholders and credit rating agencies. Such organisations view investment in any type of power plant as risky, raising the cost of capital to levels at which nuclear is less likely to compete.

    The logic of this transfer to competitive electricity markets was that plant developers possessed better information and had direct control over management and so had the means as well as the incentive to control costs. Builders of non-nuclear power plants were willing to take these risks, as were vendors of energy efficiency services. Consequently, when consumers no longer bore the economic risk of new plant construction, nuclear power, which combines uncompetitively high prices with poor reliability and serious risks of cost overruns, had no chance in countries that moved to competitive power procurement.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/24160/the-economics-of-nuclear-power.pdf

    Nuclear power generation is a public liability both in terms of cost and risk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Oldtree wrote: »
    did I misunderstand your post or were you being glib??

    something clearly did happen in Japan of a very serious nature that was not very safe
    I meant relative to Chernobyl and the in the general context of the earthquake and tsunami.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm not sure. I only know that our little country wouldn't change that big question very much by adopting nuclear energy but we would reap all the benefits.
    So what happens if lots and lots of “little countries” all decide to go nuclear? High-grade uranium’s going to become highly sought-after, isn’t it? And after making the massive commitment to go nuclear, it’s going to be pretty difficult to back out if the cost of uranium (in both financial and environmental terms) becomes uneconomically high.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Coal power plants releasing fly ash cause more radioactive emissions than a properly working nuclear power plant of the same specification:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short

    "Clean" coal is actually quite filthy, and creates a waste problem worse than nuclear power by volume:
    http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/morecoalwaste

    Subsidies for wind energy in the U.K. top £1,000,000,000 per year.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html

    Land take: To supply 1/6th of the UK's energy needs (with wind power) would require an area the size of Wales
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

    Accidents: A good report from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum:
    http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf
    Your claim that nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient and most reliable form of power generation is still unsupported?
    SeanW wrote: »
    ...there's also the indisputable fact that irrationally opposing nuclear energy almost always means saying Yes to Coal, as shown in Germany.
    How is that an indisputable fact? It’s clearly a false dichotomy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    djpbarry wrote: »
    So what happens if lots and lots of “little countries” all decide to go nuclear? High-grade uranium’s going to become highly sought-after, isn’t it?
    Long term, there's a need to look at Thorium. I don't think we're at that point yet, though IIRC India is looking at it now.
    How is that an indisputable fact? It’s clearly a false dichotomy?
    I said "almost" always. Clearly there are cases like Norway and Iceland where they have lots of hydroelectricity and geothermal. Those countries have cheap, clean, reliable, renewable energy, and lots of it. But these are the exception.

    Everyone else has to make some hard choices.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    Even if we totally ignore the potential environmental impacts of nuclear power, the economics simply do not add up when you include ALL costs.

    The cost of building the plant runs into pretty enormous money to start with.
    Then you've got the on-going maintenance, fueling and running costs which are quite high.
    You've got major security costs, particularly somewhere like Ireland where there is a genuine and real terrorism risk.
    Then you've got the elephant in the room : fuel disposal and decommissioning costs. These are astronomically expensive.

    The decommissioning costs for the UK's legacy of nuclear power is running at £73.6 billion at the moment and will probably cost a lot more than that as that estimate's coming from the industry itself and the UK Government.

    Some estimates put it at more like £160 billion!!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/true-price-of-uks-nuclear-legacy-163160bn-472368.html

    Admittedly, it's still possibly cheaper than decommissioning Anglo Irish Bank! (which is an entirely different story) but, I don't really think Ireland could afford to run a nuclear programme.

    Also, if you consider the vast cost of building and running these plants, how much CO2 would be saved by putting those billions into say energy efficiency programmes for homes and buildings?

    Or, lashing it into public transport in the cities?

    I think it could easily offset the CO2 savings of a couple of nuclear reactors!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,230 ✭✭✭Solair


    SeanW wrote: »

    Ted is right about Thorium, from what I understand they're even safer than good Uranium reactors and even more efficient. For example this:
    202617.jpg

    It certainly turns your hand a funny colour!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,588 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Solair wrote: »
    Even if we totally ignore the potential environmental impacts of nuclear power, the economics simply do not add up when you include ALL costs.
    Neither renewables or fossil fuels operate without subsidy. Fossil fuels simply dump their wastes into the air for the most part, and the health costs among the people are paid for directly by the people. It never shows up on any balance sheet.

    Wind farms aren't cheap either - as well as being unstable, unreliable generators, a public safety challenge and a wildlife nightmare, they also require vast subsidies, like the £1bn/year being soaked to British electricity users. Without that, these wind farms wouldn't exist and any that did, would likely be closed down.

    Nuclear is the only form of generation that has to account for the bulk of the costs it imposes. Even still it frequently is shown to be economically worthwhile.
    The decommissioning costs for the UK's legacy of nuclear power is running at £73.6 billion at the moment and will probably cost a lot more than that as that estimate's coming from the industry itself and the UK Government.
    It's safe to say that the UK was an early adopter of nuclear energy and had first movers disadvantage. On the topic of nuclear decommissioning, it would be better to do it the way France does (the French gov't charges a decommissioning levy on nuclear electricity sales) or the American way (the plant builder puts up a decommissioning bond at the time they apply for a license).
    Including £50bn for cleaning up their Defence Forces nuclear issues, submarines, nuclear weapons etc.
    Admittedly, it's still possibly cheaper than decommissioning Anglo Irish Bank! (which is an entirely different story) but, I don't really think Ireland could afford to run a nuclear programme.
    Between climate change mandates, carbon trading and suchlike, continuing business as usual will be way more expensive than using nuclear power.
    CO2 would be saved by putting those billions into say energy efficiency programmes for homes and buildings?
    Already happening, to a limited extent.
    Or, lashing it into public transport in the cities?
    I'm a passionate supporter of railway development in the cities, I campaigned for the Dart Underground for example because I believed and still do, that it's a very important project that will provide serious benefits to our people.

    It's not going to solve global warming though.


Advertisement