Difference between revisions of "The Institution of Civil Engineers"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Letter to the Times, 6 January 2005 | Letter to the Times, 6 January 2005 | ||
| − | Sir, We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s review of UK energy policy. In particular, we urge the Government not to delay decisions that might prevent nuclear power remaining an integral part of the UK’s future energy mix, since we do not believe there are any technical or safety reasons why it should not do so. | + | Sir, We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s review of UK energy policy. In particular, we urge the Government not to delay decisions that might prevent nuclear power remaining an integral part of the UK’s future energy mix, since we do not believe there are any technical or safety reasons why it should not do so. <br><br> |
Besides reducing CO2 emissions, a new generation of nuclear power stations could enhance security of energy supply. However, given the ten to fifteen-year lead time required for new nuclear power stations to come online, it is now imperative that the Government clarifies its policy and the regulatory framework to provide a stable background for future investment within the energy industry, and that a cross-party consensus is reached since the timeframe over which such investments are analysed spans several parliaments. | Besides reducing CO2 emissions, a new generation of nuclear power stations could enhance security of energy supply. However, given the ten to fifteen-year lead time required for new nuclear power stations to come online, it is now imperative that the Government clarifies its policy and the regulatory framework to provide a stable background for future investment within the energy industry, and that a cross-party consensus is reached since the timeframe over which such investments are analysed spans several parliaments. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1972121,00.html] | [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1972121,00.html] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related Links== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Letter to the Editor, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1972121,00.html "Energy crisis solved on home turf"], ''The Times'', January 6, 2005 | ||
Revision as of 21:20, 28 January 2006
Letter to the Times, 6 January 2005
Sir, We strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s review of UK energy policy. In particular, we urge the Government not to delay decisions that might prevent nuclear power remaining an integral part of the UK’s future energy mix, since we do not believe there are any technical or safety reasons why it should not do so.
Besides reducing CO2 emissions, a new generation of nuclear power stations could enhance security of energy supply. However, given the ten to fifteen-year lead time required for new nuclear power stations to come online, it is now imperative that the Government clarifies its policy and the regulatory framework to provide a stable background for future investment within the energy industry, and that a cross-party consensus is reached since the timeframe over which such investments are analysed spans several parliaments.
KEITH READ,
Director-general,
Institute of Marine Engineering
Science and Technology
DR ALF ROBERTS
Chief Executive,
Institution of Electrical Engineers
TOM FOULKES
Director-General,
Institution of Civil Engineers
SIR MICHAEL MOORE
Chief Executive
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
PETER WASON
Chief Executive,
Institution of Incorporated Engineers
DR KEITH EATON
Chief Executive,
Institution of Structural Engineers
Related Links
Letter to the Editor, "Energy crisis solved on home turf", The Times, January 6, 2005
