nuclear-news

The UK Government said in December that moving the weapons elsewhere would be an “enormous exercise” costing billions of pounds”.

 

“First the UK Government’s own legal adviser agreed that the Scottish Government’s time- scale for independence was ‘realistic’, and now the paper published by the Coalition says that nuclear weapons won’t be allowed in an independent Scotland – which will be music to the ears of the Scottish people. The SNP already propose to make weapons of mass destruction illegal in the constitution of an independent Scotland.”

By EDDIE BARNES
Published on Sunday 24 February 2013 00:00

Coalition Government offi-cials have acknowledged that, under international law, Scotland “would not be recognised as a state entitled to possess a nuclear deterrent”.

The statement, in a government analysis report on the effects of independence, appears to rule out the possibility of the UK doing a deal with an independent Scotland to keep nuclear weap­­ons on the Clyde indefinitely under a new military pact.

It increases the prospect of Scottish and UK governments having to negotiate a formal leasing deal to allow nuclear weapons to continue to be
stationed in Scotland, even temporarily, following a Yes vote in next year’s referendum.

The SNP said last night that once an independent government had signed up to non-proliferation treaty rules, Britain’s current submarine-based nuclear deterrent based at Faslane and Coulport would have to leave Scotland as soon as possible.

The Non Proliferation Treaty is a 40-year-old international agreement which has been signed by 190 countries – including the UK – and is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Article 1 states that countries such as Britain, which have nuclear weapons, must not give control over such armaments to non-nuclear states.

The UK Government’s legal position on Faslane has now been clarified in its analysis paper on Scottish independence. It states: “The future of the UK’s nuclear weapons and facilities would be an important issue to be resolved. Under international law, an independent Scotland would not be recognised as a state entitled to possess a nuclear
deterrent.”

Continue reading →

Nissan Leaf’s government subsidized attempt to garner support with taxi drivers is failing spectacularly. In less than 2 years of use, the 60 mile battery has degraded to 30 miles per charge. Instead of 15 minutes to charge the battery, it now takes 40 minutes. This is wasted time for taxi drivers. To save energy as much as possible, some drivers are shunning the car’s heater in favor of chemical pocket warmers, and even blankets. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, electricity is no longer seen as the clean, safe option it once was.

If everyone switched to electric cars, we would need 7 times more power plants. These power plants would burn oil or coal or use nuclear radiation power. More would be placed near people’s neighborhoods.

Electric cars are simply not green. They just shift the source of pollution elsewhere. They would also risk more nuclear disasters. They are also not efficient use of oil since you have to burn more barrels of oil to power an electric car than that used to power a gas car.

Far better are hybrids or alternative fuel source cars – such as alcohol or biodiesel cars. They have renewable sources of energy.

Compare Nissan’s experience with the spectacular success of Toyota’s Prius and Prius V with Taxi drivers.

If electric cars don’t work for Taxi Drivers, then they are not worth it at all.
Taxi Drivers are the ultimate testers for reliability and longevity of cars.